State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Kamlesh Bhatia Wife Of Sh. Om Parkash ... vs N.R. Meena, Senior Superintendent Of ... on 26 November, 2012
R.P. No. 03 of 2009 1
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
Revision Petition No. 03 of 2009
Date of institution : 28.01.2009
Date of decision : 26.11.2012
Kamlesh Bhatia wife of Sh. Om Parkash Bhatia, resident of 159,
Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Jalandhar City.
.....Petitioner
Versus
N.R. Meena, Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Jalandhar
Division, Department of posts, G.P.O. Building, Jalandhar City,
District Jalandhar.
.....Respondent
Revision Petition against the order dated
26.11.2008 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Jalandhar
Before:-
Sardar. Jagroop Singh Mahal,
Presiding Judicial Member.
Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member Present:-
For the petitioner : Sh. Rajinder Bhatia, Advocate for Sh. L.M. Gulati, Advocate For the respondent : Sh. Namit Kumar, Advocate JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
This is revision petition against the order dated 26.11.2008 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) dismissing R.P. No. 03 of 2009 2 the application moved by the complainant under section 340 Cr.P.C. for filing a complaint of perjury against the O.P/respondent.
2. The complainant/petitioner filed a complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging that she alongwith her father Dev Raj Bhatia opened 17 Monthly Income Schemes (MIS in short) deposits with the post office in which a sum of Rs. 3, 98, 000/- was deposited. However subsequently these MIS deposits were fraudulently closed by forging the signature of Dev Raj Bhatia in connivance with the officials of the post office. According to her it is necessary that both the account holders sign the withdrawl forms and the account could not be closed through a messenger nor a post office small saving agent can be appointed as a messenger to close the account and to carry the cash. She therefore, prayed for the payment of Rs. 3,98,000/- on maturity of the Accounts. It was also alleged that the payment in excess of Rs. 20,000/- cannot be made in cash as was done in this case. It was alleged that the respondent filed an affidavit alleging to the contrary which is false, evidence and therefore due to these acts, he is liable to be prosecuted for perjury by holding an inquiry under section 340 Cr.pc.
3. After hearing the arguments and going through the averments, the learned District Forum dismissed the application basing its order on the decision of the Hon'ble National Commission in case "Reliance India Mobile Vs. Hari Chand Gupta, 2006 (2) CPC R.P. No. 03 of 2009 3 545" as per order dated 26.11.2008. The petitioner has challenged the same through this petition.
4. On the other hand, the complaint filed by the petitioner was allowed by the learned District Forum vide order dated 29.4.2008 and the O.Ps were directed to pay her the amount of Rs. 3,98,000/- against which the O.Ps have filed two regular appeals whereas the complainant has also filed an appeal for payment of interest and costs.
5. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
6. Vide our separate order of today in F.A. No. 1097 of 2008 (Secretary, Government of India, Department of Posts Vs. Kamlesh Bhatia), we have set-aside the order dated 29.04.2008 passed by the learned District Forum, and have ordered dismissal of the complaint holding that it was not necessary for the O.P/respondents to seek the consent of the joint depositor for the premature withdrawal of the MIS deposits and that as per the post office Rules as it stood in 2003, a small saving agent could act as messenger of the depositors to close the account. It has also been held that though there is small aberration in not releasing the amount through cheque or bank draft but it can be ignored because it was only a paper transaction as the amount was re-invested on the same dates on which the MIS accounts were closed. In view of the order R.P. No. 03 of 2009 4 of even date passed in the said appeals, we have accepted as correct the testimony of the respondent and therefore we are of the opinion that there is no offence committed by the respondent and there is no need to file the complaint against him. Otherwise also in such cases as held by Hon'ble National Commission penalty is to be imposed on the person giving false evidence before the Consumer Fora instead of filing a regular complaint before the Criminal Court.
7. Viewed from any angle, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
8. Parties shall bear their own costs.
Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost (JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER November 26, 2012. (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA) Rupinder MEMBER