National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Ram Piari & Anr. vs Suprintendent Of Post Officer & 2 Ors. on 5 January, 2018
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2152 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 21/05/2015 in Appeal No. 1233/2013 of the State Commission Punjab) 1. RAM PIARI & ANR. W/O PRAKASH CHANDER, VILLAGE KHAI PHEME KE NOW CHUHI CHOWK,FEROZEPUR,TEHSIL & DISTRICT FEROZEPUR PUNJAB 2. SUSHIL KUMAR AHUJA S/O PRAKASH CHANDER
VILLAGE KHAI PHEME KE NOW CHUHI CHOWK,FEROZEPUR,TEHSIL & DISTRICT FEROZEPUR PUNJAB ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. SUPRINTENDENT OF POST OFFICER & 2 ORS. FEROZEPUR DIVISION, FEROZEPUR PUNJAB 2. DIRECTOR POST OFFICE, SECTOR-17, CHANDIGARH 3. POST MASTER GENERAL PUNJAB, SECTOR-17, CHANDIGARH ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. DR. B.C. GUPTA,PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. DR. S.M. KANTIKAR,MEMBER
For the Petitioner : For the Respondent :
Dated : 05 Jan 2018 ORDER
APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS
For the Petitioners
:
Mr. A. Tewari, Advocate
Ms. Eliza Bar, Advocate
For the Respondents
:
Mr. Ravinder Pal Singh, Advocate
PRONOUNCED ON: 5th January 2018
ORDER
PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, challenging the impugned order dated 21.05.2015, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission") in First Appeal No. 1233/2013, Superintendent of Post Offices, Ferozpur & Ors. vs. Ram Piari & Anr., vide which, while accepting the appeal, the order dated 19.07.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozpur in Consumer Complaint No. 22/2013, filed by the present petitioners, allowing the complaint, was set aside and the said complaint was ordered to be dismissed.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant Smt. Ram Piari w/o Prakash Chander and her son Sushil Kumar Ahuja, opened a joint saving account no. 549232 in the post office at village Khai Phemeke, District Ferozpur and they had been depositing and withdrawing the money as per need from the said post office. It is stated that Rakesh Kumar, the incharge Sub-Post Master played a fraud with the department and embezzled the money deposited for which, FIR No. 164/2011 under various sections of the Indian Penal Code was registered against him. At that time, there was an outstanding balance of Rs. 2,00,050/- in the savings account of the complainants. Despite approaching the opposite parties (OPs) time and again, their money was not paid to them. The complainants filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking directions to the OPs to pay an amount of Rs. 2,00,050/- alongwith interest as per the rules of the department and also to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for mental harassment and Rs. 7,700/- as litigation expenses.
3. The complaint was resisted by the OPs by filing the written statement before the District Forum, in which they stated that mixed questions of law and facts were involved in the matter and hence, the same could not be decided in summary proceedings before the consumer fora. The OPs stated that Rakesh Kumar, Branch Post Mater had played fraud with some depositors and hence, they made wide publicity in the village and also got public notice published, asking the depositors to get their accounts verified upto 13.03.2012. However, the complainants never approached the department for such verification. The complaint filed by the complainants, therefore, deserved to be dismissed.
4. The District Forum, after considering the averments of the parties, passed their order on 19.07.2013, allowing the said consumer complaint and directing the OPs to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,050/- alongwith interest as applicable to the savings account in the post office from 10.02.2010 till realisation. A sum of Rs. 5,000/- was also ordered to be paid as compensation and Rs. 3,000/- as litigation expenses. The District Forum observed that as per the investigation report of the police, Rakesh Kumar had made embezzlement of Rs. 85,89,346.65 with all the residents of the village. The District Forum also observed that an employer was liable for the acts committed by its employees/agents and the complainant could not be made to suffer for the fraud done by the employees of the opposite party. Being aggrieved against the order passed by the District Forum, the OPs challenged the same by way of an appeal before the State Commission. The said appeal was allowed by the State Commission vide impugned order, saying that complex question of facts and law involving forgery, fraud, embezzlement etc. were involved in the matter and hence, the case could not be decided in summary proceedings. Being aggrieved against the said order of the State Commission, the complainants are before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.
5. It was contended on behalf of the petitioners/complainants that they had deposited their hard-earned money with the post office and the same should have been remitted back to them by the OPs, even if their own employee had committed fraud/embezzlement etc. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that no complex issues were involved in the present matter. The case could very much be decided in summary proceedings before the consumer fora below. The learned counsel has drawn attention to the observations of the State Commission in the impugned order as well, in which it has been stated that there was no dispute that Rakesh Kumar, an employee of the OPs had embezzled the amounts of the complainants. The learned counsel further stated that the trial in the criminal case against Rakesh Kumar had since been concluded and he had been duly convicted by the judgement dated 28.08.2012, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozpur. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel has drawn attention to an order passed by this Commission in Haryana Gramin Bank & Ors. vs. Jaswinder & Ors., IV (2010) CPJ 210 (NC), in which it was held that the employer was vicariously liable for the action of its employees.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents/OPs stated on the other hand that there was no deficiency in service on their part as following the embezzlement done by Rakesh Kumar, they had got an FIR registered against him and also made two departmental inquiries. Since appropriate action had already been initiated against him, they were not liable to make any payment to the complainants.
7. We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.
8. An examination of the material on record reveals that the factum of embezzlement having been done by an employee of the postal department, Rakesh Kumar had been duly admitted by the OPs. The said Rakesh Kumar has already been convicted in the case under section 409 IPC vide order dated 28.08.2012, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozpur. It is evident, therefore, that fraud/embezzlement had been made by an employee of the postal department and they are required to compensate their depositors, who have suffered for no fault of their own.
9. The State Commission in the impugned order have observed that complex questions of facts and law involving forgery, fraud, embezzlement etc. were involved in the matter, which required detailed examination of the evidence etc. and hence, the matter could not be adjudicated in summary proceedings before the consumer fora below. We have no reason to agree with this finding of the State Commission, because the factum of fraud/forgery/embezzlement etc. has been fully established from the order passed by the learned Criminal Court. The consumer fora are, therefore, fully competent to take cognizance of the matter and take decision as per the material on record. We are supported in taking this view in a judgement made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dr. J. J. Merchant & Ors. vs. Shrinath Chatruvedi, (2002) 6 SCC 635.
10. The only question that remains to be considered is whether the department is liable for the actions of omission or commission done by its employees.
11. As held by this Commission in the case, Haryana Gramin Bank & Ors. vs. Jaswinder & Ors. (supra), it has been made clear that an employer is vicariously liable for the actions of its employees. It is clear, therefore, that the postal authorities are liable to provide adequate compensation to the depositors, who have suffered due to the misdeeds of its own employee. Moreover, the Ops are instrumentalities of the State under article 12 of the Constitution of India and they are liable to compensate their subjects, if any of their employees have committed any fraud with them.
12. In so far as the issue of verification of the amount deposited by the complainant is concerned, copies of the passbook have been placed on record relating to the account held by the complainant with the Ops. It is very clear from the entries in the passbook that a sum of Rs. 2,00,050/- was outstanding balance in the account of the complainants as on 10.02.2010. A seal/stamp of the post office has been affixed on such entries, meaning thereby that the complainants were having that much amount in their account when the embezzlement took place. During arguments before us, the learned counsel for the OPs stated that being residents of a village, the complainants could not be expected to have such huge sum in their account. We do not agree with the learned counsel for the opposite parties by any stretch of imagination on this account. The State of Punjab is an agriculturally-advanced State and the residents of the area in question in Ferozpur District are in a position to have this kind of amounts in their accounts in routine only. We, therefore, do not agree with the contention of the OPs that the complainants could not be expected to have this kind of amount in their savings account.
13. Based on the discussion above, this revision petition is allowed and the order passed by the State Commission is set aside, being perverse in the eyes of law. The order passed by the District Forum, Ferozpur is upheld and a direction is given to the OPs to remit the amounts to the complainants within a period of four weeks from today, as allowed by the District Forum in their order, alongwith the interest prevalent for the relevant period for the savings account. In addition, the compensation as allowed by the District Forum, shall also be paid within the same period. There shall be no order as to costs.
...................... DR. B.C. GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DR. S.M. KANTIKAR MEMBER