State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sukhdev Kumar Sood vs Union Of India on 23 January, 2017
2nd Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 553 of 2014
Date of institution: 12.05.2014
Date of order reserved: 16.01.2017
Date of Decision: 23.01.2017
Sukhdev Kumar Sood son of Amritpal Sood, resident of Mohalla Krishan
Nagar, Nakodar, District Jalandhar.
Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. Union of India through its Under Secretary, Ministry of Post and
Telecommunication, Department of Posts, Parliament Street, New
Delhi.
2. Department of Posts, Office of the Post Master General, Punjab
Region, Chandigarh - 160017
3. Superintendent of Post Office, Head Office, Kapurthala.
4. Sub Post Master, Post Office, Nakodar.
Respondents/Opposite Parties
First Appeal against the order dated 7.4.2014
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Jalandhar.
Quorum:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member
Present:-
For the appellant : None.
For the respondents : Sh. R.P. Singh, Advocate
First Appeal No. 553 of 2014 2
Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
ORDER
The appellant/complainant (hereinafter referred as complainant) has filed the present appeal against the order dated 07.04.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar(hereinafter referred as the District Forum) in consumer complaint No. 255 dated 17.06.2013 vide which the complaint filed by complainant was dismissed.
2. Complaint was filed by complainant under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short 'the Act') against respondents/opposite parties (hereinafter referred as Ops) on the averments that he had saving bank account No. 558932 with Op No. 4. On 13.8.2008, he had confirmed to the Sub Post Master, Nakodar for correction of entries in his pass book but the Post Master refused to correct the entries. On 16.9.2008, he filed a written complaint to Post Master, Nakodar Branch for issuance of the duplicate pass book and correction of irregular entries in his pass book. Then he filed written request on 13.8.2009, under RTI Act, 2005. Order was passed by Ranju Parsad, Director, Postal Services on 27.8.2009 and he preferred an appeal against the said order. He had applied for the ledger copy for the period 1.5.2006 to 30.5.2006 but Ops supplied ledger copy upto 8.11.2008. He contended that he did not withdraw a sum of Rs. 21,000/- on 16.9.2008 and requested Ops to issue duplicate pass book. It was observed in the appeal that request of the complainant is not covered under RTI Act, 2005. On 9.11.2009, he moved an application regarding aforesaid passbook for issuance of First Appeal No. 553 of 2014 3 fresh passbook and correction of irregular entries of Rs. 2,55,025.60p to Op No. 4. A written request regarding correction of the entry to Op No. 4 was made on 30.9.2009 and other letter was issued on 26.8.2010 regarding the minus balance of Rs. 3,44,55.40p in his saving bank account. He moved an other application on 16.2.2013 to Op No. 4 and he received a registered letter on 28.3.2013 that outstanding overdrawing amount is Rs. 3,29,786.40p. This letter issued by Op No. 3 is totally unwarranted, uncalled and illegal demand made from the complainant. Accordingly, the complaint was filed before the District Forum to set-aside the said illegal demand and also pays compensation of Rs. 1 lac i.e. Rs. 50,000/0 for loss of business and Rs. 20,000/- for litigation charges and Rs. 15,000/- mental agony and Rs. 15,000/- for physical harassment.
3. Complaint was contested by Ops, who filed their written reply taking preliminary objections that the complaint in the present form was not maintainable; Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint as it relates to the excess payment made by the Department and the matter be relegated to the Civil Court; complainant had not approached the Forum with clean hands and suppressed the material facts and that complainant was appointed as SAS Agent and in CWP No. 5718 of 2007 passed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court that he played fraud with the depositors. On merits, it was admitted that the complainant was having saving bank account No. 558932 on 5.4.1974 at Nakodar Sub Office. Being SAS Agent nominated by the State Government, he submitted his business at Nakodar Sub Office and spent a lot of time First Appeal No. 553 of 2014 4 in the office and had good acquaintance with the Staff Members. He took benefit of official mistakes of withdrawl taken by him. As a result of that, his account came in minus balance. It was admitted to the extent that it was duty of the Department to maintain correct account of every depositor but at the same time depositor is also given a statement of account containing of each deposit and withdrawl in the shape of pass book. Complainant was requested number of times to submit his pass book for the period 2003-2004 but he did not cooperate. The complainant had sought information under RTI Act, 2005 and the same was supplied. On receipt of information, complainant approached the Department for rectification of the balance. On his application for rectification of his account was rectified and it was found that the complainant had withdrawn the amount over and excess the balance due to him. The complainant was addressed through Post Master, Nakodar and Post Master, Kapurthala for withdrawn of excess by him from SB A/c No. 558932 but he did not cooperate. The details of the account after rectification is as under:-
Date of Deposit Withdra Inter Actual Balance Differen Particul Remar Transact wal est Balance noted in ce due ars of ks ion posti after ledger to non instrum ng transact after posting ent i.e. ion transact or pay in ion wrong slip SB noting 7 or of cheque Balanc e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1.4.01 - - 72.60 - - - - Inst.
2000- 2001 1.4.03 - - 46,80 - - - - Inst 2002- 03 14.7.03 882.00 - - 47300.0 47308.0 8.00 - Balan 0 0 ce First Appeal No. 553 of 2014 5 written wrongl y 21.11.03 2081.0 - - 4660.00 27872.0 23212. - Balan 0 0 00 ce written wrongl y 26.7.14 - 86270.0 - 7880.00 94170.0 86270. - WD 0 0 00 entry not posted 26.10.04 784.00 - - 122991. 123031. 40.00 - Balan 00 00 ce written wrongl y 30.10.04 - 70700.0 - 22609.0 93309.0 70700. - WE 0 0 0 00 entry not posted 14.7.05 104200 - - 110370. 116370. 6000 - Balan .00 00 00 ce written wrongl y 31.1.06 - 12500.0 - 216377. 228877. 12500. By WD 0 00 00 00 Cheque not 53301 posted 4.2.06 42000 - - 78516.0 78510.0 6.00 - Balan 0 0 ce written wrongl y 3.3.06 - 16820.0 - 181110. 181650 540.00 - Balan 0 00 ce written wrongl y 7.3.06 6619.0 - - 50770.0 57394.0 6619.0 SBI 03 Item 0 0 0 0 relate to 55893 1 18.3.06 - 125200. - 11786.0 136986 125200 - WS 00 0 .00 entry not posted Difference after adjustment of unposted/wrong posted entries.
Date Amount Date Amount
1.4.2001 72.60 14.7.03 8.00
1.4.2003 46.80 21.11.03 23212.00
4.2.2006 6.00 26.7.04 40.00
Total 125.40 26.10.2004 86270.00
30.10.04 70700.00
14.07.05 6000.00
31.1.06 12500.00
3.3.06 540.00
7.3.06 6619.00
18.3.06 125200.00
Total 331089.00
(-) Unposted items of 125.40
deposits
(-) Actual Balance in the 1177.20
First Appeal No. 553 of 2014 6
account
Net Minus Balance as on 329786.40
6.3.09
The rectification has been done according to the record, therefore, there is no merit in the complaint, it be dismissed.
4. Before the District Forum, the parties led their respective evidence.
5. In support of his allegations, the complainant had tendered into evidence affidavit of Sukhdev Kumar Sood Ex. C-A, passbook Ex. C-1, letter dt. 13.8.04 Ex. C-3, Form 'A' Ex. C-4, letter dt. 9.11.09 Ex. C-5, letter Ex. C-6, letter dt. 30.9.09 Ex. C-7, letter Ex. C-8, letter dt. 28.6.10 Ex. C-9, letter dt. 15.2.13 Ex. C-11. On the other hand, Ops had tendered into evidence affidavit of Makhan Singh Ex. Op-A, letter dt. 11.1.2013 Ex. Op-1, letter dt. 30.1.13 Ex. Op-2, letter dt. 28.3.2013 Ex. Op-3, instruction of Postal Banking Ex. Op-4 & 5, letter dt. 13.8 Ex. Op-6, letter dt. 9.11.09 Ex. Op-7, letter dt. 13.11.09 Ex. Op-8, ledger copy Ex. Op-9, cheque copy Ex. Op-10, voucher copy Ex. Op-11, cheque copy Ex. Op-12, cheque copy Ex. Op-13, voucher Ex. Op-14, letter Ex. Op-15 & 16, order Ex. Op-17, letter under RTI Ex. Op-18, letter dt. 27.8.09 Ex. Op-19, letter dt. 10.8.09 Ex. Op-20, ledger copy Ex. Op-21, letter dt. 6.8.09 Ex. Op- 22, Form A Ex. Op-23, orders of High Court Ex. Op-24, ledger copies Exs. Op-25.
6. After going through the allegations in the complaint, written version filed by Ops, evidence and documents brought on the record, the District Forum dismissed the complaint after observing that Ops have placed on the record ledger Ex. Op-25 in which excess First Appeal No. 553 of 2014 7 amount has been withdrawn by the complainant, therefore, complainant failed to prove on the record that the demand raised by the Op is wrong and illegal.
7. Aggrieved with the order passed by the learned District Forum, the present complaint has been filed by the appellant/complainant. It was filed by Sh. Liaqat Ali, Advocate but from 7.9.2016 to 16.1.2017 for six dates, none appeared on behalf of the appellant.
8. Since none was present on behalf of the appellant, we have heard the appeal in the absence of counsel for the appellant/complainant with the assistance of counsel for the Op Mr. R.P. Singh, Advocate and have carefully gone through the record of the District Forum.
9. In the grounds of appeal, it was stated by the complainant that the District Forum without considering the material facts on the record has dismissed the complaint of the complainant. No amount was over drawn by the complainant in his account, therefore, the order passed by the District Forum is illegal, null and void, therefore, it is liable to be set-aside. In case, we examine the entries referred by Ops in their written statement reproduced above, the entries dated 1.4.2001 of Rs. 72.60p, 1.4.2003 Rs. 46.80p and 4.2.2006 Rs. 6.00p have been made on adjustment to the credit of the complainant, therefore, these entries are not in issue. The entries in dispute are dated 14.7.2003 of Rs. 8/-. It is just a calculation mistake of Rs. 8/-, which is clear from the entries of the ledger contained in Ex. Op-25. The next entry is dated 21.11.2003 of Rs. 23,212/-. It is also a First Appeal No. 553 of 2014 8 calculation mistake, therefore, it was correctly rectified. The next entry is dated 26.7.2014 (26.10.2004). It is withdrawl entry of Rs. 86270/- vide cheque dated 26.7.2004 of Rs. 86270/- Ex. Op-12. It has been stated that this withdrawl entry was not made in the ledger and on recetification, this withdrawl entry was made in the account of the complainant. No doubt that this cheque dated 26.7.2004 (Ex. Op-
12) was issued by the complainant in favour of Sub Post Master, Nakodar. As orally stated, it was to be deposited by him in the account of some account holder from whom the complainant was collecting the money as SAS Agent. However, the Ops have failed to place on the record the account statement of Sub Post Master, where that amount was credited or that it was deposited in the account of any account holder, therefore, in the absence of any corresponding entry in the name of Sub Post Master, Nakodar or in the account of any account holder, Ops were not entitled to carry this withdrawl entry in the account of the complainant merely on the basis of cheque. The next entry is dated 26.10.2004 of Rs. 253/-, it is just calculation mistake, therefore, it was rightly carried out in the account of the complainant. Then there is entry dated 30.10.2014 of Rs. 70,700/-. It is on the basis of cheque of Rs. 70,700/- dated 30.10.2004 (Ex. Op-
13), which is in the name of Sub Post Master, Nakodar. However, the Ops have failed to place on the record the account statement of Sub Post Master, where that amount was credited or further it was deposited in the account of any account holder, therefore, in the absence of corresponding credit entry in the name of Sub Post Master, Nakodar or in the account of any account holder, Ops were First Appeal No. 553 of 2014 9 not entitled to carry this withdrawl entry in the account of the complainant. The next entry is dated 14.7.2005 of Rs. 6000/-. It is at page No. 267 (Ex. Op-25). It is also a calculation mistake and was rightly carried out by Ops. The next entry is dated 31.1.2006 of Rs. 12,500/-. It is a calculation mistake, therefore, it was correctly rectified. The next entry is dated 4.2.2006 of Rs. 6/-. It is also calculation mistake. Similar is the position of entry dated 3.3.2006 of Rs. 540/-. It was on account of balance wrongly written. The next entry is dated 7.3.2006 of Rs. 6619/-. It is also a calculation mistake, therefore, it was correctly carried out. The next entry is dated 18.3.2006 of Rs. 1,25,200/- on the basis of cheque of that date proved on the record as Ex. Op-14. However, the Ops have failed to place on the record the account statement of Sub Post Master, where that amount was credited in the account of the Post Master or further it was credited in the account of any account holder, therefore, in the absence of any corresponding credit entry in the name of Sub Post Master, Nakodar or in the account of any account holder, Ops were not entitled to carry this withdrawl entry in the account of the complainant.
10. In this way, during the course of arguments, the counsel for the Op could not justify the withdrawl entries of Rs. 86,270/- dated 26.10.2004, entry of Rs. 70,700/- dated 30.10.2004 and entry of Rs. 1,25,200/- dated 18.3.2006, total amounting to Rs. 2,82,170/-. The District Forum while returning the findings has only referred the ledger(Ex. Op-25) but had not gone through each entry, which was made in the Passbook of the complainant where the withdrawl entry First Appeal No. 553 of 2014 10 is justified or not. In these circumstances, the order passed by the District Forum is not wholly correct and is liable to be modified and the order totally dismissing the complaint is not justified.
11. Sequel to the above, we partly accept the appeal. Impugned order is modified and complaint filed by the complainant is partly accepted. It is held that the Ops have not been able to justify the withdrawl entries of Rs. 2,82,170/- in the account of complaint showing minus amount of Rs. 3,29,786.40p. They are directed to make credit entries of Rs. 2,82,170/- in the account of the complainant on the date when withdrawl entry was made. However, they will be entitled to recover the balance amount in accordance with law from the complainant. No order as to costs.
12. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
13. Order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
(Gurcharan Singh Saran)
Presiding Judicial Member
January 23, 2017. (Surinder Pal Kaur)
as Member