State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Post Master vs Ghananand Sharma on 6 January, 2011
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Appeal against the order dated 19.4.2010 passed by District Forum-III, Janak Puri, New Delhi-58 in complaint case no 667/2004. Date of Decision : 6.1.2011 Appeal No. FA-08/1111 1. The Post Master, Anup Shahar, Bulandshahar, UP 2. Sh. Sham Lal, Post Master, Nangloi, Delhi-41 Appellant VS Shri Ghananand Sharma s/o Sh. Mohal Lal Shastri Co house Owner Smt. Subhadra Sharma House No.J-225, J-Block, Shiva Ram Park, Nangloi, Delhi- 110 041 ..Respondent CORAM Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi, President Kanwal Inder, Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
KANWAL INDER, MEMBER
1. The Respondent Shri Dhananand Sharma had filed complaint case No.667/04 against the Appellants alleging that he had deposited Rs.4750/- on 13.5.1986 with Appellant No.1, Post Master Anup Shahar under 5 years Scheme and was informed that his money would double after every 5 years.
In 1991, he was informed by the Post Master that his deposit has become Rs.9500/- under 5 Years Scheme. When he went after 10 years, he was informed that in 1996, amount in his deposit was Rs.19000/-. After 15 years he requested for issuance of Kisan Vikas Patra for Rs.38000/- and furnished his address on asking, but he has been cheated by the appellant No.2.
In Sept., 2003, he had handed over his pass book No.1008641 to the appellant No.2 having entry of Rs.10,637/- to get it transferred from Anup Shahar and to deposit money in his Pass Book No.837833. However, he had not deposited that money despite several visits. The appellant No.2 told him that his Pass Book has been lost.
He has threatened for which report has been lodged. The respondent had filed the complaint praying for direction to add interest for the years 2002,2003 & 2004 amounting to Rs.16,280/- making total sum Rs.54,285.
2. The complaint was being contested. The appellant no. 2 in Written Statement termed the complaint as frivolous, vexatious and without any basis and stated that the respondent for the first time visited post office Nangloi on 28.05.2004 with pass book relating to Anoop Shahar Post Office, for transfer. Receipt for obtaining the pass book bearing balance of Rs.10,637.30 was given to him. His pass book has since been received from Anoop Shahar Post Office on 30.08.2004 and a new account no. 842370 has been allotted to him. He was informed and was asked to fill Form SB-3 but he refused to complete departmental formalities and even threatened the appellant no. 2. The appellant no. 1 has placed on record copies of documents pertaining to the respondents Account no. 1008641, including Saving Bank Ledger Card, specific signature book, application for transfer and documents relating to transfer of account in account no. 842370 at Nangloi.
3. Evidence was led by way of affidavits. After hearing the parties, the case has been decided by the District Forum mentioning in the impugned order that the main issue involved is whether the money invested by the complainant on 13.05.1986 was to be kept in saving account or under five years time deposit scheme with re-investment. Taking into account the fact that the money remained with post office for more than 20 years, form SB-3 filled by the complainant could not be retrieved, the District Forum presumed that the respondent had filled in the Form for time deposit and not for saving bank account and passed the following order.
Under the above facts and circumstances, we direct OP. No.1 and OP No.2 to consider the complainants deposit of Rs.4750/- made on 13.5.1986 to be in the time deposit scheme for five years, with reinvestment on maturity every time till 12, May, 2011. In the alternative, if the complainant decides to withdraw on maturity only till 12th may, 2006 and after that the amount shall be considered as remaining in saving bank account till the date of option exercised by complainant. Any payment made to the complainant from the Saving Bank Account No.1008641 and Account No.842370 be adjusted from the maturity amount to be determined on 12.5.2011 or 12.5.2006 as the case may be.
It is obvious that due to consideration of time deposit, it will have reflection on Saving Bank Account No.1008641 and current Saving Bank Account No.842370 and the correction in the accounts be made accordingly. For the deficiency in service on the part of OP-1, we direct OP-1 to pay an additional amount of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant towards cost of litigation and compensation.
4. This brings the appellants in appeal before us. We have heard Counsel for the appellants and the respondent in person and have gone through the record.
5. As stated above, the case has been decided on the basis of presumption due to non-production of Form SB-3 filled in 1986, and money being with the appellants for long time. Though the impugned order makes mention of the evidence led by the appellants, but evidence produced on record has neither been discussed, nor taken into account. There is no finding that the evidence led on record does not throw any light on the matter being considered. The District Forum has not recorded any finding of deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the appellants.
6. Perusal of record reveals that oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the appellants show that the deposit made by the respondent was in saving account. This fact is evident from the official record maintained by the appellants in normal course of business. It is pertinent to note that the entries recorded therein tally with the amounts stated by the respondent himself in his applications. In letter written in 1988 to appellant no. 1 regarding issuance of duplicate pass book no. 1008641, the respondent has mentioned that the pass book contained the entry dated 19.06.1989 of Rs.4,750/-, total of which after adding interest was Rs.5,240/70p. The Respondent prayed for early action as his daughters were to be married on 23.07.1988 and he required money for the purpose. In his other application for transfer of account, he has mentioned Rs.10,637/- as balance in his pass book. Same are the amounts recorded in the Saving Bank Ledger Card maintained by the appellants which specifically mentions the amounts accrued as interest and refer to this account as saving account.
7. In the complaint itself the respondent has stated that in September, 2003 he had handed over his pass book no. 1008641 having entry of Rs.10,637/- to the appellant no. 2 to get it transferred from Anoop Shahar. Thus as per complaint itself, in September, 2003, that is after 17 years, Rs.10,637/- were lying in his account as per entry in his pass book. This negates his assertions that after 10 years the deposit of Rs.4,750/- had become Rs.19,000/- or that it should be Rs.38,000/- after 15 years. The Respondent was having his passbook throughout and had been mentioning the amounts recorded at the time of submission of his application/pass book to the appellants. He was conscious enough to mention figure in vernacular as well. That means that he was fully aware of amount lying deposited in his account and obviously knew that it had not doubled after every 5 years. Hence, his oral self serving assertion that the appellant no. 1 informed him that it would double cannot help him for seeking any relief before the authorities established under law, nor admissible in view of written documents with the parties.
If version of the respondent is to be taken as stated, it means that despite having passbook in his possession containing entries regarding amount lying to his credit, he is coming up with a case that he was orally informed by the appellant no. 1 that his money would become double after every five years. This cannot be legally basis of any claim, and in any case he cannot be held entitled to anything on such a submission, particularly when he himself has been mentioning about the amounts lying to his credit in the letters written to the appellants, meaning thereby that he is literate enough to be aware of contents of his passbook.
8. From the complaint it appears that the respondent is aggrieved by the fact that passbook submitted by him to appellant no. 2 for transferring his account from the appellant no. 1 to the appellant no. 2 was reported to be lost and his money was not being credited in his favour despite several visits. This grievance is over when the appellant no. 2 submitted in reply that passbook of the respondent has since been received from the appellant no. 1 on 30.08.2004 and a new account has been allotted to him. Ledger pertaining to account of the respondent contains entries of interest up to date.
9. Prayer in the complaint is for direction to add interest for the years 2002, 2003 and 2004 amounting to Rs.16,280/-, making total sum Rs.54,285/-. However, it is his own submission that amount entered in his passbook as in September, 2003 was Rs.10,637/-. That means that prayer of the complainant is that his amount should increase more than 5 times in an year, which is not even his case.
10. The relief granted vide the impugned order has not even been asked for, which in effect requires the postal authorities to re-write their entire record regarding deposit made by the respondent, without even recording a finding of fact that the respondent had actually made investment in any such Time Deposit Scheme.
11. For the reasons stated above, we come to the conclusion that the impugned order is not in accordance with the facts and law. Hence the appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set-aside and the complaint is dismissed as satisfied as the amount deposited by the respondent with the appellant no. 1 has since been credited in his new account with the appellant no. 2.
12. FDR/Statutory Deposit if any be returned to the appellants on completion of due formalities.
13. Copy of the order be provided to the parties free of cost as per rules. One copy of the order be sent to the concerned District Forum.
14. The file be consigned to the Record Room after needful is done.
(Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi) President (Kanwal Inder) Member Arya