State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Sr. Post Master Genera; vs Sri Ashoke Chakraborty on 17 January, 2014
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal 11A, MIRZA GHALIB STREET, KOLKATA-700 087. 1. S.C. CASE NO- FA/368/12 (Arisen out of Order Dt. 20/04/2012 in Case No. CC/769/2009 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata-II ) DATE OF FILING: 05.07.12 DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 17.01.14 APPELLANTS: 1. Sri Ashok Chakraborty, S/O Late Raj Kumar Chakraborty. 2. Smt. Uma Chakraborty. W/O Sri Ashok Chakraborty , Both residing at 39/1, Abinash Banerjee Lane, P.O- Santragachi, Dist- Howrah, Pin- 711104. RESPONDENTS : 1. The Sr. Post Master General, Serampore Head Post Office, Serampore, Hooghly. W.B. 2. Asst. Post Master -1 Serampore Head Post Office, Serampore, Hooghly. 3. The Sr. Supdt. of Post Office South Hooghly Divn. Serampore. 4. The Post Master General, South Bengal Region, Kolkata- 700 012. 5. The Asst. Director of Postal Service (S.B.) West Bengal Circle, Kolkata- 700 012. 6. The Office of the Chief Post Master General, West Bengal Circle Yogayog Bhawan, Kolkata- 700 012. 7. Minati Bhattacharjee, Authorized agent of Serampore Post Office, Resident of 5, Chakraborty Para Bye Lane, Serampore, District- Hooghly. 8. State Bank of India, Serampore Branch , Serampore, Hooghly. FOR THE APPELLANTS : Mr. Satyajit Mahata, Ld. Advocate. FOR THE RESPONDENTS: Smt. Ratna Brahmachari, Ld. Advocate. _____________________________________________________________________________ 2. S.C. CASE NO- FA/567/12 (Arisen out of Order Dt. 20/04/2012 in Case No. CC/769/2009 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata-II ) DATE OF FILING: 30.08.12 DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 17.01.14 APPELLANTS: 1. The Sr. Post Master General, Serampore Head Post Office, Hooghly. 2. Asst. Post Master Serampore Head Post Office, Serampore, Hooghly. 3. The Sr. Supdt. of Post Office South Hooghly Divn. Serampore. 4. The Post Master General, South Bengal Region, Kolkata- 700 012. 5. The Asst. Director of Postal Service (S.B.) West Bengal Circle, Kolkata- 700 012. 6. The Office of the Chief Post Master General, West Bengal Circle Yogayog Bhawan, Kolkata- 700 012. 7. State Bank of India, Serampore Branch, Serampore, Hooghly. RESPONDENTS : 1. Sri Ashoke Chakraborty, 2. Smt. Uma Chakraborty, W/O Sri Ashoke chakraborty, Both resident of 39/1, Abinash Banerjee Lane, P.O- Santragachi, District- Howrah, Pin- 711104. .. Respondent. 3. Minati Bhattacharjee, Resident of 5, Chakraborty Para Bye Lane, P.O. and P.S. Serampore, District- Hooghly. .. BEFORE HONBLE MEMBER : Sri Debasis Bhattacharya. HONBLE MEMBER : Sri Jagannath Bag. FOR THE APPELLANTS : Mrs. Ratna Brahmachari, Ld. Advocate. FOR THE RESPONDENTS: Mr. Satyajit Mahata. Ld. Advocate. : O R D E R :
MR. J.BAG, LD. MEMBER These two appeals arise out of one and the same Order , dated 20.04.2012, of the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata Unit-II in CDF / Unit II / CC No. 769 / 2009 whereby Ld. Forum below allowed the complaint on contest with the cost against OP Nos. 1-6 and exparte against OP No. 7 and dismissed against OP No.8.
Both the appeals are taken up together for adjudication keeping in view the fact that there was one original complaint which , briefly stated , was as follows:
The Complainants, Sri Asok Chakrobarty and Smt Uma Chakrobarty , had jointly opened three MIS Accounts (No.8017575 dt. 12.11.2005 , No. 8017853 dt. 25.11.2005 and No. 8019375 dt. 11.02.2006) by depositing Rs. 1,05,000/- for each at Serampur Head Post Office, Hooghly , in November 2005 and February 2006 through an agent, namely, Smt. Minati Bhattacharya. One RD Account bearing No. 4005937 was also opened on 08.11.2005 by the said Complainants through the same agent . The Complainants received monthly interest @ Rs. 700/- from each of the 3 MIS accounts . While the said agent , Smt. Minati Bhattacharya, used to return Rs. 14,00/- each month against two MIS Accounts ( No. 8017853 and No. 1819357) , Rs. 700/-( against No. 8017575) would be deposited in the R.D account. The Complainants used to sign the withdrawal slips and authorized the agent to withdraw the interest amounts from the Post Office. But, there was a whisper that the said agent Minati Bhattacharyya committed some financial irregularity. The Complainants , after a series of contact / correspondence with Postal authorities, came to know vide letter dated 22.12.2008 of the Chief Public Information Officer and Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, South Hooghly Division , Serampore, that their MIS Account No. 8017575 opened on 12.11.2005 was closed on 17.04.2007 with disbursement of a sum of Rs. 1,02,900/- by a cheque ( No. 430585) and their R.D. Account No. 4005937 opened on 08.11.2005 was discontinued having a balance of Rs. 13,300/- only. The Complainants having apprehended that the amount of Rs. 1,02,900/- was delivered by the Post Office in an irregular manner , as pre-mature closures of any MIS Account was never prayed for , demanded the return of the money deposited by them and requested for issue of duplicate pass books of MIS Account No. 8017575 and RD Account No. 4005937. Having received no positive response from the Postal authorities , the Complainants lodged a consumer complaint before the Ld. Forum below with the allegation that it was because of negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Post Office that their hard earned money deposited in MIS Accounts was allowed to be withdrawn illegally , though they did not apply for any premature withdrawal . They prayed for direction upon OP Nos. 1 - 6 to refund the deposited amount of Rs. 1,05,000/- together with interest and to pay compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- from as costs .
The complaint was contested by OP Nos. 1 - 6 ( all of Postal Department ) denying all allegations and contending, inter alia , that by submitting a due notice through his authorized messenger Sri Souvik Bhattacharyya in the form of SB -7A for pre-mature closure of his MIS Account No. 801517575 , the Complainant, Sri Asok Chakraborty closed the MIS account on 17.04.2007 and the RD A/C was discontinued after last transaction on 31.05.2007 with a balance of Rs. 13,300/- . There was no deficiency on their part and it was Sri Souvik Bhattacharya who was authorized by the Complainant to withdraw the money from the MIS Account Number 8017575 and the payment was made to the Complainants messenger, Sri Souvik Bhattacharya . The complaint was prayed to be dismissed.
Ld. Forum below having considered all material facts and circumstances decided that the Complainants proved their case with cogent oral and documentary evidence and the OPs failed to substantiate their defence, and having relied upon the principle as laid down by the Apex Court in the decision reported in AIR 1994 SC 787 in the case of Lucknow Development Authority vs- M.K. Gupta that the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act have to be construed in favour of the Consumer to achieve the purpose of enactment as it is a social benefit oriented legislation , was of the view that the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- should be awarded in favour of the Complainant but instead of directing OPs ( 1- 6 ) to pay such compensation gave them liberty to get the matter enquired into for fixing responsibility of and realizing the full amount including compensation from the wrong doer. They restrained from awarding such compensation by the Govt Body i.e the Postal Department as the burden would go ultimately to the common man. The complaint was disposed of by directing the OPs ( 1-6) to pay a cost of Rs. 2,000/- and to refund a sum of Rs. 1,05,000/- as deposited under the MIS Account being No 8017575 with interest @ 8% since 17.04.2007 till the date of maturity and thereafter the amount together with the accrued interest would carry further interest @ 9% p.a from the date of institution of the case till realization of the awarded sum.
While the Complainants / Appellants vide FA 368 / 2012 are aggrieved that by the impugned order, compensation has not been ordered to be paid straighatway by the OPs, though Ld. Forum below was convinced about the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs in allowing withdrawal of the money in question , the OP/ Appellants by their cross appeal vide FA 567/12 , prays for order to set aside the impugned order for a different reason that Ld. Forum below allowed the complaint without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case in proper perspective We have gone through both the Memoranda of Appeal together with the complaint, W.V. submitted by the OPs and other materials.
Ld. Advocates appearing in both the appeals for both the Complainant /Appellants and the OP/ Appellants have been heard.
Ld. Advocate appearing for the Complainant / Appellants submitted that there was a clear nexus between the Postal staff and the agent who were at the root of the total mischief. Though there was no withdrawal slip signed by the Complainant for premature withdrawal of the MIS account , the withdrawal slip was deposited showing fake signature of the Complainant , Sri Asok Chakrobarty . The signature was found to be not authentic/ genuine . It was the responsibility of the Post Office to entertain the application form for premature withdrawal of MIS only after proper verification of the signatures . They were recorded at the time of opening of the MIS account and kept in office record. It was a deficiency in service on the part of the postal authority in entertaining the form SB / 7A without verifying signatures. The Ld. Forum below rightly observed that compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- should be awarded in favour of the Complainants but the view that such compensation should be paid after holding enquiry and fixing responsibility is not tenable in so far as the responsibility of the postal authority was to ensure proper service as service provider which they neglected . The complaint being allowed by the Ld. Forum , compensation should have been allowed along . The compensation is very much due in consideration of the harassment and mental agony suffered by the Complainant. Hence, the impugned order needs to be modified to issue directions upon the OP Respondents to pay compensation without waiting for enquiry which is but an internal affair of the Post Office.
Ld. Advocate appearing for the OP/ Appellants submitted that the agent Smt. Minati Bhattacharya used to withdraw the interest amounts from the MIS accounts of the Complainants only on being authorized to do so . In the case of premature withdrawal of the MIS Account No. 8017575 also , the Complainant authorized in form SB / 7A and deposited the same to the Post Office . Signature of the Complainant was verified and upon such verification only , the pre-mature withdrawal as prayed for was allowed and the cheque No. 430585 for a sum of Rs. 1,02,900/- was handed over to the authorized messenger of the Complainant Sri Ashok Chakrobarty. There was nothing irregular in the act of the OP/ Appellant . The impugned order suffers from illegality and deserves to be set aside.
Decisions with Reasons We find from the submissions of Ld. Advocates appearing for both parties that the main dispute is over the issue of withdrawal of the sum of Rs.1,02,900/-
against pre-mature closure of the MIS account No.8017575. While the OP / Appellants argue that the Complainant , Sri Asok Chakrobarty sent a form SB -7A requesting for pre-mature closure of the account and authorized Sri Souvik Bhattacharya as messenger for the purpose of withdrawing the same, the said Complainant denies any authorization in favour of the said Souvik Bhattacharya.
An Account Payee cheque is said to have been issued in the name of the Complainant / Appellant (as stated vide question No. 9 put by the OP ) . But, the Complainant / Appellant denied having authorized any messenger named Souvik Bhattacharya to receive payment against MIS account No. 8017575 .
What is very vital in determining the actual position is that on verification of signatures by handwriting expert of Questioned Document Examination Bureau , Govt of West Bengal, CID , Bhavani Bhawan , it revealed that the signature as said to have been put by the Complainant , Asok Chakrobarty in the account opening form of SB Account No. 775267 through which the account payee cheque for Rs. 1,02900/- was encashed is spurious as compared to the original signatures in other account opening forms of MIS Account Nos. 8019357 , 4005937 and 8017853. The report says as follows:
Questioned signatures marked as Q/1 and Q/2 are imitation of the form of standard signature marked as S/1 to S/11 .
Reasons : Questioned signatures marked as Q/1 and Q/2 have been executed with slow and drawn writing movement of the indentation line drawn by way of tracing, having a number of defects in line quality such as hesitation, delicate tremor, blunt start , blunt finish, pen halt and pen lift at unusual places, change of pen impulses at unusual places, retouching, inconsistent pen pressure etc, which are the inherent defects of imitation. The smoothness uniformity, continuity and rapidity of the writing strokes as observed in the specimen and standard signatures marked as S, S/1 to S/11 did not observe in the questioned signatures. In spite of pictorial resemblances due to imitation , they diverge in minute significant writing features such as manner of writing, manner of execution of the letters, nature and position of start, direction of pen movement , nature of the interlinking strokes, skill movement etc. Divergences and defects in line quality are significant and sufficient to prove the spuriousness of the signature marked as Q/1 and Q/2.
The report of the handwriting expert has not been challenged by OP / Appellants . Though Ld. Advocate appearing for the OP / Appellants submitted that in terms of decision of the Honble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the matter of Life Insurance Corporation of India vs- Gurinder Kour as reported in III (2012) CPJ 597 NC opinion of expert is not binding , we are convinced that the mischief done in respect of putting imitated signature of the Complainant No. 1 in the Account opening form (SB Account No. 775267) is at the very root of the dispute that led to the premature withdrawal of money from the MIS account No. 8017575 .
Again, the cheque ( No. 430585) amounting to Rs. 1,02,900 /- which, as per report of the Senior Post Master , Serampore, was tendered on 18.04.2007 by the depositor for cash through SB A/C No. 775267 standing in the names of 1. Asok Chakrobarty and (2) Biman Chakrobarty was paid to the customer on 18.04.2007 itself, though from the report of the Chief Manager , State Bank of India , vide their No.CM-54/108 dated 17.08.2009, it appears that the cheque No. 430585 for Rs. 1,02,900/- was presented on 21.04.2007 by Deputy Post Master, Serampore, Head Post Office and the amount was paid on the same date. There is a clear indication that prior to the clearance / encashment of the cheque on 21.04.2007 , the Postal authority allowed withdrawal of the cheque immediately after its being tendered on 18.04.2007 itself. The copy of the Ledger page with respect to Account No. 775267 corroborates such fact as stated by the Senior Post Master , Serampore HPO. This leads to a serious adverse inference that the Postal authoritys move to pay Rs. 1,02900/- to Sri Souvik Bhattacharyya said to be the authorized agent of the Complainant Asok Chakrobarty was irregular.
Ld. Forum below was convinced about deficiency in service on the part of the OP/Appellants but observed that the OPs, namely, Postal authority being a Govt Body , the common mans money will be pulled in for compensation and as such they were of the view that OPs 1-6 would be given liberty to make enquiry properly for fixing responsibility of and realizing full amounts including compensation from the wrongdoer. We , however, do not agree to such view since it is immaterial whether the service provider is a Govt body or a privately run organization in case of deficiency in service, which , if established by cogent evidence, has to be properly dealt with , considering the gravity of the deficiency and in this case as the deficiency in service which is of serious nature stands established, we do not hesitate to hold that compensation worth of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand )only in place of Rs. 1,00,000/-as considered by the Ld. Forum below shall be paid by the OP / Appellants without waiting for enquiry against whosoever it may be. The impugned order needs to be amended .
Hence, Ordered that FA/368/12 be and the same is allowed in part on contest and FA 567/12 dismissed . The Postal authorities shall , further to compliance of the final order of the Ld. Forum below , pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand ) only for causing harassment and mental agony to the Complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of this order , failing which interest @ 9% shall be payable on the said amount till full realization.
The impugned order stands modified accordingly.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be kept with the record of FA/567/12, while the original order shall be kept in the file of FA/368/12. .
Sri Jagannath Bag Sri Debasis Bhattacharya (Member) (Member)