State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Raj Pal 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. 554 of 2014
Date of institution: 12.05.2014
Date of order reserved: 16.01.2017
Date of Decision: 23.01.2017
Raj Pal 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. 554 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. 253 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. 558931 with Op No. 4. On 28.6.2010, he had written to the Sub Post Master, Nakodar for correction of entries in the said pass book but the Post Master refused to correct the entries. On 16.2.2013, he filed a written complaint to Post Master, Nakodar Branch for correction of irregular entries in his pass book. Thereafter, complainant received registered letter dated 28.3.2013 in which indicated the outstanding of overdrawing of Rs. 4,19,753.50p by Op No. 3 and recovery shall be made. This demand letter issued by Op No. 3 is totally illegal, unwarranted, uncalled and complainant had never applied for loan or an overdraw facility from Op Nos. 3 & 4. Due to this illegal demand of the Ops, he has suffered a loss of Rs. 50,000/- because his income has reduced on daily basis. Accordingly, the complaint was filed to set-aside the said illegal demand and also pay compensation of Rs. 1 lac i.e. Rs. 50,000/- for First Appeal No. 554 of 2014 3 loss of business and Rs. 20,000/- for litigation charges and Rs. 15,000/- for 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 is 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 as that complainant was appointed as SAS Agent and in CWP No. 5718 of 2007 passed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, it was observed that he played fraud with the depositors. On merits, it was admitted that the complainant was having saving bank account No. 558931 w.e.f. 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 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 had gone in minus balance. It was admitted to the extent that it was duty of the Department to properly maintain account of every account holder 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 to 2006 but he did not cooperate. On receipt of information, complainant approached the Department for rectification of the balance. On his application, rectification of his account was done and First Appeal No. 554 of 2014 4 it was found that the complainant had drawn 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. 558931 but he did not cooperate. The detail of the account after rectification is as under:-
Date of Deposit Withdra- Inter- Actual Balance Differe- Partic Remar Trans- wal est Balance noted in nce due u-lars -ks action post- after ledger to non of ing transact- after posting instru-
tion transact- or wrong ment
tion noting of e.g.
Balance pay-
in-slip
SB 7
or
cheq-
ue
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1.4.03 - - 83.00 - - 83.00 Inst. Entry
2000- Omitte
2001 d
23.6.03 38675.0 - - 61667.5 186667. 117000. - -
0 3 53 00
16.8.05 138320. - - 178753. 178753. 10.00 - Balan-
00 00 00 ce
wrong
-ly
written
24.8.05 - 224610. - 34370.0 258980. 224610. Chq. WD
00 0 00 00 54161 no
4 posted
25.8.05 - - 623.9 259904. 259604. 1-55 Intt. -
5 50 95 2001-
02
5.9.05 - 45000 - 205460. 245960. 40500 - Balan-
95 95 ce
wrongl
y
written
29.10.0 - 36670.0 - 53245.9 64725.9 11480.0 - -
5 0 5 5 0
31.12.0 - 36920.0 - 4234.95 41154.9 36920.0 Chq. WD
5 0 5 0 54079 not
9 posted
0201- 400000. 400000. - 54581.9 54581.9 1334.00 SB- Depos
2006 00 00 5 5 103 it not
posted
7.3.06 6619.00 - - 38876.0 32257.0 6619.00 - Balan
0 0 ce
wrongl
y
3.3.06 - 16820.0 - 181110. 181650 540.00 - Balan
0 00 ce
written
wrongl
y
7.3.06 6619.00 - - 50770.0 57394.0 6619.00 SBI Item
First Appeal No. 554 of 2014 5
0 0 03 relate
to
55893
1
18.3.06 - 125200. - 11786.0 136986 125200. - Balan
00 0 00 ce
posted
in
55893
2
Difference after adjustment of unposted/wrong posted entries.1 2 3 4
Date Amount Date Amount 1.4.200 83.00 23.6.2003 117000.00 3 25.8.20 1.55 16.8.2005 10.00 05 2.1.200 1334.00 24.8.2005 224610.00 6 7.3.200 6619.00 5.9.2005 40500.00 6 Total 8037.55 29.10.2005 11480.00 31.12.05 36920.00 Total 430520.00 (-) Unposted items of 8037.55 deposits (-) Actual Balance in the 2728.95 account Net Minus Balance as on 419753.50 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 Raj Pal Sood Ex. C-A, passbook Ex. C-1, letter dt. 21.6.10 Ex. C-2, letter dt. 28.6.10 Ex. C-3, letter dt. 15.3.2012 Ex. C-4, letter of Op dt. 30.1.2013 Ex. C-5, letter dt. 15.2.13 Ex. C-6, letter of Ops dt. 28.3.13 Ex. Op-7. 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, ledger copy Ex. Op-4, vouchers Exs. Op-6 to 11, orders of High Court Ex. Op-12, ledger copies Ex. Op-13. First Appeal No. 554 of 2014 6
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 has placed on the record ledger Ex. Op-13 in which excess 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. 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 and evidence 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.
10. When the complainant moved application with Ops to rectify his account, his account was overhauled and in that account, Ops credited entry of Rs. 83.00 on 1.4.2003, entry of Rs. 1.55 dated 25.8.2005. Then another entry of Rs. 1334/- dated 2.1.2006 and Rs. First Appeal No. 554 of 2014 7 6619/- dated 7.3.2006, therefore, there is no dispute with regard to these entries. With regard to the other entries, there is entry dated 23.6.2003 of Rs. 1,17,000/-. There is a calculation mistake because after entry of Rs. 12,990/-, there was deposit of Rs. 38,675/- and total credit was shown as Rs. 1,86,667.53p and a sum of Rs. 1,17,000/- was excess credited in the account of the complainant. Therefore, this amount was correctly debited in the account of the complainant. As on 13.8.2005, the credit in the account of the complainant was Rs. 40,453/- on deposit of Rs. 1,38,320/-. The credit has been shown as Rs. 1,78,783/- with a difference of Rs. 10/-, therefore, it is also a calculation mistake and correctly debited from the account of the complainant. Then there is entry of Rs. 2,24,610/- dated 24.8.2005 on the basis of cheque No. 541614 i.e. cheque of Rs. 2,24,610/- (Ex. Op-6) in the name of Sub Post Master. 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 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 are not entitled to carry this withdrawl entry in the account of the complainant. Further there is dispute of Rs. 40,500/- dated 5.9.2005. There is entry of Rs. 2,50,460/- on 5.9.2005 and on the same day a sum of Rs. 45,000/- was debited and the credit should have been Rs. 2,05,460/- whereas it was shown as Rs. 2,45,960.95p, the difference of Rs. 40,500/-, therefore, it is a calculation mistake, correctly carried out and correctly amount was debited from the account of the First Appeal No. 554 of 2014 8 complainant. Then there is entry dated 29.10.2005 of Rs. 11,480/- and or that date a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was withdrawn and balance should have been Rs. 64,725.90 whereas it was shown as Rs. 89,915/- and then a sum of Rs. 36,670/- was withdrawn and the balance was shown as Rs. 64,725/-. There is a difference of Rs. 11,480/-, therefore, it is a calculation mistake and was rightly debited from the account of the complainant. The next entry is dated 31.12.2005 of cheque No. 540799 of Rs. 36,920/-. That cheque is Ex. Op-7 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 not entitled to carry this withdrawl entry in the account of the complainant. Therefore, till the corresponding entry is proved in favour of the Sub Post Master, Nakodar then Ops were not justified to carry debit entry from the account of the complainant. In this way, a sum of Rs. 2,24,610/- and Rs. 36,920/-; in all Rs. 2,61,530/- was wrongly debited from the account of the complainant without any corresponding entry that this amount was credited in the account of the Sub Post Master or any account holder in which it was deposited. Therefore, the Ops have wrongly deducted this amount from the account of the complainant, which is required to be credited in the account of the complainant. After credit of this amount, then recoverable amount against the complainant will be Rs. 4,19,753/- (-) Rs. 2,61,530/- = Rs. 1,58,223/-. First Appeal No. 554 of 2014 9
11. The District Forum while returning the findings has only referred the ledger(Ex. Op-13) but had not gone through each entry, which has been made in the Passbook of the complainant whether the withdrawl entry 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.
12. Sequel to the above, we partly accept the appeal. Impugned order is set-aside. It is held that the Ops have not been able to justify withdrawl entries of Rs. 2,61,530/- in the minus account of Rs. 4,19,753.50p carried out in the account of the complainant. They are directed to credit the amount in the account of the complainant on the date it was due to be made. Otherwise, they will be entitled to recover the balance amount in accordance with law from the complainant. No order as to costs.
13. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
14. Order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
(Gurcharan Singh Saran)
Presiding Judicial Member
January 23, 2017. (Surinder Pal Kaur)
as Member