State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Indian Postal Department vs Sanjay Verma on 25 May, 2023
Appeal No. Indian Postal Department 25.05.2023
106 of 2016 Vs.
Sh. Sanjay Verma and Anr.
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND, DEHRADUN
Date of Institution: 26.05.2016
Date of Final Hearing: 17.05.2023
Date of Pronouncement: 25.05.2023
First Appeal No. 106 / 2016
Indian Postal Department
Through Superintendent
Post Office, Almora, Circle Almora
(Through: Sh. Ashok Dimri, A.D.G.C. (Civil), Advocate)
.....Appellant
VERSUS
1. Sh. Sanjay Verma S/o Sh. Govind Lal Verma
Advocate
R/o Mohalla Bamankhola, Almora
(Through: Chandrakala Tiwari, Advocate)
..... Respondent No. 1
2. Smt. Pushpa Pant W/o Sh. Rajendra Pant
R/o Mohalla Talla Kholta, Almora
.....None for Respondent No. 2
Coram:
Ms. Kumkum Rani, Judicial Member II
Mr. B.S. Manral, Member
ORDER
(Per: Ms. Kumkum Rani, Judicial Member II):
This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been directed against the judgment and order dated 03.05.2016 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Almora (hereinafter to be referred as the District Commission) in consumer 1 Appeal No. Indian Postal Department 25.05.2023 106 of 2016 Vs. Sh. Sanjay Verma and Anr.
complaint No. 15 of 2016 styled as Sanjay Verma Vs. Indian Postal Department, Almora and Anr., wherein and whereby the complaint case was allowed.
2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, are as such that the complaint No. 15 of 2016 was filed by the respondent No. 1- complainant (in short 'respondent No. 1') on the ground that the complainant opened two RD accounts in Post Office (opposite party No. 1) through authorised agent (opposite party No. 2) on dated 27.03.2012 bearing RD account No. 836329 and 836330. The monthly installments of Rs. 500/- in each account was deposited. Respondent No. 1 gave Rs. 500/- per month to the respondent No. 2 - opposite party No. 2 Smt. Pushpa Pant to postal department - opposite party No. 1 from March, 2012 to January, 2015 and thereby an amount to the tune of Rs. 17,500/- were deposited by the respondent No. 1 in each account. The respondent No. 1 enquired about the balance amount in each account and came to know that the installment per month for three months were only deposited in each account in the passbook of the postal department. The respondent No. 2 - opposite party No. 2 had provided some receipts of all the installments in both of the accounts from March, 2012 to January, 2015 but the respondent No. 2 - opposite party No. 2 as per instructions of the postal department has not entered the amount in original pass-book and accordingly handed over the original pass-book to the respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 requested the postal department to pay Rs. 35,000/- (Rs. 17,500/- in each account with interest), but the request was turned down by the postal department on the pretext that only three installments have been deposited by Smt. Pushpa Pant in the original pass-books of each account. Inspite of notice, the amount was not paid to the respondent No. 1, hence a consumer complaint was filed before the District Commission.
2Appeal No. Indian Postal Department 25.05.2023 106 of 2016 Vs. Sh. Sanjay Verma and Anr.
3. Appellant - opposite party No. 1 - Postal Department has admitted that the installments were received from the respondent No. 1; it was also contended by the appellant that a writ petition regarding all the defaulted RD accounts including two RD accounts in question, has been filed by respondent No. 2 - opposite party No. 2 before the Hon'ble High Court of Uttarakhand, Nainital and the matter was subjudice before the Hon'ble High Court; the post office is not responsible for payment of amount not entered into the original pass books of the account holder.
4. The opposite party No. 2 has admitted to receive the installments for Rs. 500/- for each account from March, 2012 to January, 2015. In the written statement, the opposite party No.l 2 has stated that she deposited the amount to the post office, but the post office has not entered the installments in the original pass-books.
5. After hearing both the parties and after perusing the record, the learned District Commission passed the impugned judgment and order dated 03.05.2016 wherein it is held as under:
"For the reasons mentioned in the judgment, the complaint is allowed.
O.P. No. 1, Indian Postal Department, through Superintendent of Post, Almora Mandal is directed to pay Rs. 17,500/- for each R.D. account (total Rs. 35,000/-) to the complainant Mr. Sanjay Verma, along with the prescribed interest from March, 2012 till the payment of the amounts to the complainant.
The complainant Mr. Sanjay Verma is also entitled for Rs. 10,000/- on mental stress 3 Appeal No. Indian Postal Department 25.05.2023 106 of 2016 Vs. Sh. Sanjay Verma and Anr.
and agony and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses."
6. On having been aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of the District Commission, the appellant has preferred the present appeal contending that the impugned judgment is against law and contrary to the evidences and facts available at the case file. It is also further contended that the District Commission has ignored the fact that Rs. 500/- per month was deposited by the complainant Sh. Sanjay Verma in sub-post office Pokhar Khali in RD account No. 836329 and 836330 on 27.03.2012 which were opened through respondent No. 2, i.e. Smt. Pushpa Pant. Smt. Pushpa Pant was working as a female agent, who was appointed as an agent from the office of District Development Office under the Government of Uttarakhand and after the appointment of the agent, the appointment letters of the agent are sent to the concerned post office by the Assistant Director of Savings so that the work can be done by the agent working in the concerned post office, that means respondent No. 2 was neither an employee of the appellant department nor the appellant department appointed respondent No. 2 as its agent. Despite this, the District Commission committed a great mistake in passing the order treating the respondent No. 2 as an employee of the appellant. It is further contended that the appellant department has no administrative control over the agents and the appellant department accepts the business brought by the agents only. But this fact was ignored by the District Commission that the respondent No. 1 did not even visit his said accounts after May 2012 or from March 2012 to January 2015 whereas it was the duty of the respondent No. 1 that he would check the entry of any amount deposited by him in his RD, but the respondent No. 1 did not do so. The judgment was passed on the basis of considering only the card given to the account holder by the respondent No. 2 whereas the card is filled by the respondent No. 2 on 4 Appeal No. Indian Postal Department 25.05.2023 106 of 2016 Vs. Sh. Sanjay Verma and Anr.
which there is no signature or seal stamp of the appellant department and respondent No. 2 also did not make entry in the RD pass-book of the respondent No. 1, as it is clear that till May 2012 the respondent No. 2 had only deposited Rs. 1,500/- since March, 2012 @ Rs. 500/- per month. Therefore, the entry was not made in the pass-book by the respondent No.
2. If the amount of the respondent No. 1 had been deposited by the respondent No. 2 it would definitely have been entered in the pass-book. If not, action would have been taken by the respondent No. 2 herself. But this was not done, because the respondent No. 2 had full knowledge of her act. Despite this the District Commission committed a great mistake in passing the impugned judgment. It is mentioned that neither the money was deposited in the account of the respondent No. 1 by the agent nor the pass- book was given to the respondent No. 1 and the respondent No. 1 has never asked the respondent No. 2 to check his accounts. Thereby there was negligence and the respondent No. 1 was not entitled to get the benefit of his own negligence in any sort of manner. The Commission below has also ignored the fact that irregularities have been committed in other accounts also by the respondent No. 2 and for which the appellant department would not be able to recover it from respondent No. 2; a writ petition has been presented before the Hon'ble High Court of Uttarakhand, Nainital by the respondent No. 2 that all the recovery should be made from the appellant department, a counter affidavit has been submitted before the Hon'ble High Court, Nainital. Despite this, a great mistake was made by the District Commission in passing the impugned judgment against the appellant department. It is further averred that the District Commission has ignored the fact that the respondent No. 2 did not deposit the amount in the said accounts of the Post Office Department even then passed the impugned judgment against the appellant department, hence the appeal be allowed rejecting the complaint of the respondent No. 1.
5Appeal No. Indian Postal Department 25.05.2023 106 of 2016 Vs. Sh. Sanjay Verma and Anr.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has appeared, but none has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2. In her absence, the appeal is being heard ex-parte.
8. We have perused the original record of consumer complaint No. 15 of 2016 summoned from the District Commission.
9. A perusal of the record has revealed that the RD pass-book form No. HFN0076396 (paper No. 6Ka/2 of the District Commission's record) are photocopies and the original of the same was not submitted by the respondent No. 1 to prove the allegations and pleadings of the complaint. Photocopies of the documents are not conclusive evidence, hence is not admissible.
10. Paper No. 6Ka/14 (letter of the Sub-Post Office, Almora) has revealed that some enquiry was conducted by the post-office regarding the non-deposition of the amount in the account No. 836329 and 836330, but the same was not filed in the Commission below in order to show that what fact came to the knowledge of the appellant observing who was responsible for the misappropriation of the Government money or whether the alleged total amount in both the RD account was deposited by the respondent No. 1 through the agent - respondent No. 2 or not.
11. As per the pleadings of the appeal, it is admitted that the respondent No. 1 has only deposited Rs. 3,000/- (Rs. 500/- in three months in both the RD accounts, i.e. Rs. 1,500/- in each account from the period 27.03.2012 to 31.03.2015. The certified copy of the same was submitted by the appellant department which bears paper Nos. 13Ka/1 to 13Ka/4 of the District Commission's record.
6Appeal No. Indian Postal Department 25.05.2023 106 of 2016 Vs. Sh. Sanjay Verma and Anr.
12. Photocopies of the writ petition No. 2175 of 2015 Smt. Pushpa Pant Vs. Union of India and others was also filed before the District Commission according to which the Smt. Pushpa Pant (respondent No. 2) has sought relief from the Hon'ble High Court of Uttarakhand, Nainital that the Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondents to complete the department inquiry expeditiously as possible as earlier and refund the deposit made by the pass-book holders through petitioner - authorised agent of the appellant department.
13. In the writ petitioner, the department has duly replied by submitting an affidavit of Sh. S.K. Kandpal (paper No. 13Ka/33 of the District Commission's record) presently posted as Superintendent of Post, Almora Division wherein it was admitted that due to several complaints received in January 2015 inquiries were conducted and in inquiry it was revealed that Km. Devki Devi GDS Packer Pokharkhali SO allegedly misappropriated public money from various SB/RD/TD/MIS accounts and issued a fake pass-books to the depositors resulting in loss of public money. On inquiry, it was found that total loss caused to the Government is assessed to Rs. 54,60,972/- and the period of fraud/ embezzlement was found to be spread over from April, 2010 to January, 2015.
14. In para No. 5, it is stated on behalf of the Superintendent of Post, Almora Division in the counter affidavit that out of four SPMs who worked at Pokharikhal PO during 2012 to January 2015 one viz Smt. Pushpa Sah have categorically stated that the petitioner Pushpa Pant never appeared in the Post Office for depositing money collected from the depositors. However, as per the written statement of the petitioner Smt. Pushpa Pant dated 10.05.2015 she tendered the PBs and monthly list of deposit alongwith cash in between the two employees of the Pokharikhal PO which 7 Appeal No. Indian Postal Department 25.05.2023 106 of 2016 Vs. Sh. Sanjay Verma and Anr.
itself is a suspicious statement. Thus, as per the affidavit of Superintendent of Post Office during the inquiry, the conduct and the role of the employee of the postal department as well as respondent No. 2 Smt. Pushpa Pant was found suspicious. On the basis of the counter affidavit of the Superintendent of Post Office, it could not be ascertained as to whether the department is entitled to pay the amount of Rs. 35,000/- as claimed in the claim petition.
15. In the original record, the photocopies of the affidavit and the counter affidavit filed before the Hon'ble High Court are available. The respondent No. 1 Sh. Sanjay Verma has submitted an affidavit before the District Commission and filed the receipts of the amount deposited through respondent No. 2 which bears paper No. 20Kha/1 to 20Kha/25 of the District Commission's record. All these documents are the photocopies of form No. 6/Form ASLAAS - 6 (Schedule for Deposit in PO RD Account and 10/15 year CTD Account). These documents cannot be treated as original receipts of the deposits in the post office pass books of the respondent No. 1. Such documents are only the schedule form for Deposit in PO RD Account. In these documents paper No. 20Ka/1 to 20Ka/25, the seal of the post office is also not clear. It is also not proved that why the respondent No. 2 Smt. Pushpa Pant has not submitted the original deposit receipts alongwith original schedule form No. 6 before the District Commission.
16. Hence, in such circumstances, it is not proved that the respondent No. 2 had deposited the alleged amount (Rs. 35,000/-) in the post office of Almora as per law. Thus, after the appreciation of the evidence, we are of the view that the matter should be remanded to the concerned District Commission, so that the complainant as well as opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 may be able to file original documents and receipts, passbooks of the post office before the Commission below in regard to show that the amount 8 Appeal No. Indian Postal Department 25.05.2023 106 of 2016 Vs. Sh. Sanjay Verma and Anr.
obtained from Smt. Pushpa Pant was actually deposited to the Post Office Almora.
17. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the respondent No. 2 was appointed by District Development Officer under the Government of Uttarakhand, hence such department was also a necessary party to the case because the post office concerned has no direct control on such agents.
18. Accordingly, in such circumstances, we are also of the definite view that the appointing authority of the respondent No. 2, i.e. Smt. Pushpa Pant should be arrayed as a necessary party.
19. We are of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment passed by the District Commission, Almora is not in accordance with law and the impugned judgment has suffered from illegality and irregularity, hence the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is also liable to be allowed.
20. Appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 03.05.2016 passed by the District Commission, Almora is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the concerned District Commission directing the learned Commission below to hear the matter afresh after giving proper opportunity to both the parties to adduce their evidence in support of their pleadings in accordance with law and to implead the appointing authority of respondent No. 2 - opposite party No. 2 in the complaint as opposite party No. 3. The District Commission is also directed to decide the matter within six months from the date of receipt of original record to its office. Both the parties shall appear before the District Commission concerned on 25.07.2023. No order as to costs of the appeal. Office to comply.
9Appeal No. Indian Postal Department 25.05.2023 106 of 2016 Vs. Sh. Sanjay Verma and Anr.
21. Statutory amount, if deposited by the appellant, be returned to the appellant.
22. A copy of this Order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 /2019. The Order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties. The copy of this judgment alongwith original record of the District Commission be sent to the concerned District Commission for record and necessary information.
23. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Order.
24. Office as well as record keeper is directed to send the file immediately to the District Commission concerned, so that the parties may appear in the next date fixed.
(Ms. Kumkum Rani) Judicial Member II (Mr. B.S. Manral) Member Pronounced on: 25.05.2023 10