National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Sub Post Master & 3 Ors. vs Sujata Sengupta & 2 Ors. on 3 November, 2022
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 9 OF 2018 (Against the Order dated 30/08/2017 in Appeal No. 1334/2014 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. SUB POST MASTER & 3 ORS. BURNPUR MARKET SUB POST OFFICE, BURNPUR, BURDWAN-713325 WEST BENGAL 2. SR. SUPERINTENDENT POST OFFICES ASANSOL DIVISION ASANSOL-713325 WEST BENGAL 3. CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL WEST BENGAL POSTAL CIRCLE, JOGAJOG BHABAN KOLKATA-700012 WEST BENGAL 4. GENERAL MANAGER, POSTAL ACCOUNTS & FINANCE 20B, ABDUL HAMID STREET, KOLKATA-700069 WEST BENGAL ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. DIPTI DAS & 3 ORS. R/O. SHANTINAGAR, BURNPUR, BURDWAN-713325 WEST BENGAL 2. SHRI SANJIB DAS, R/O. SHANTINAGAR, BURNPUR, BURDWAN-713325 WEST BENGAL 3. RAJIB DAS R/O. SHANTINAGAR, BURNPUR, BURDWAN-713325 WEST BENGAL 4. SHRI SOUMEN ROUTH, POSTAL AGENT, NABAGHANTI, PS HIRAPUR, PO BURNPUR, BURDWAN-713325 WEST BENGAL ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 10 OF 2018 (Against the Order dated 30/08/2017 in Appeal No. 1335/2014 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. SUB POST MASTER & 3 ORS. BURNPUR MARKET SUB POST OFFICE, BURNPUR, BURDWAN-713325 WEST BENGAL 2. SR. SUPERINTENDENT POST OFFICES ASANSOL DIVISION ASANSOL-713325 WEST BENGAL 3. CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL WEST BENGAL POSTAL CIRCLE, JOGAJOG BHABAN KOLKATA-700012 WEST BENGAL 4. GENERAL MANAGER, POSTAL ACCOUNTS & FINANCE 20B, ABDUL HAMID STREET, KOLKATA-700069 WEST BENGAL ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. SUJATA SENGUPTA & 2 ORS. R/O. UPPER HILL VIEW, ASANSOL-713304 WEST BENGAL 2. PABITRA SENGUPTA R/O. UPPER HILL VIEW, ASANSOL-713304 WEST BENGAL 3. SHRI SOUMEN ROUTH, POSTAL AGENT, NABAGHANTI, PS HIRAPUR, PO. BURNPUR, BURDWAN-713325 WEST BENGAL ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 11 OF 2018 (Against the Order dated 30/08/2017 in Appeal No. 1336/2014 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. SUB POST MASTER & 3 ORS. BURNPUR MARKET SUB POST OFFICE, BURNPUR, BURDWAN-713325 WEST BENGAL 2. SR. SUPERINTENDENT POST OFFICES ASANSOL DIVISION ASANSOL-713325 WEST BENGAL 3. CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL WEST BENGAL POSTAL CIRCLE, JOGAJOG BHABAN KOLKATA-700012 WEST BENGAL 4. GENERAL MANAGER, POSTAL ACCOUNTS & FINANCE 20B, ABDUL HAMID STREET, KOLKATA-700069 WEST BENGAL ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. DEBABRATA MAZUMDER & ANR. R/O. PURANAHAT, P.O. BURNPUR, BURDWAN-713325 WEST BENGAL 2. SHRI SOUMEN ROUTH, POSTEL AGENT, NABAGHANTI, PS HIRAPUR, PO BURNPUR, BURDWAN-713325 WEST BENGAL ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 12 OF 2018 (Against the Order dated 30/08/2017 in Appeal No. 1337/2014 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. SUB POST MASTER & 3 ORS. BURNPUR MARKET SUB POST OFFICE, BURNPUR, BURDWAN-713325 WEST BENGAL 2. SR. SUPERINTENDENT POST OFFICES ASANSOL DIVISION ASANSOL-713325 WEST BENGAL 3. CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL WEST BENGAL POSTAL CIRCLE, JOGAJOG BHABAN KOLKATA-700012 WEST BENGAL 4. GENERAL MANAGER, POSTAL ACCOUNTS & FINANCE 20B, ABDUL HAMID STREET, KOLKATA-700069 WEST BENGAL ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. SIB SHANKAR PAL & 4 ORS. R/O. AMBAGAN TENTULTLALA PO BURNPUR, BURDWAN-713325 WEST BENGAL 2. SMT. JHUMA PAL R/O. AMBAGAN TENTULTLALA PO BURNPUR, BURDWAN-713325 WEST BENGAL 3. URMILKA PAL R/O. AMBAGAN TENTULTLALA PO BURNPUR, BURDWAN-713325 WEST BENGAL 4. SHRI SOUMEN ROUTH, POSTEL AGENT, NABAGHANTI PS HIRAPUR, P.O. BURNPUR, BURDWAN-713325 WEST BENGAL 5. SMT. SANTOSHI ROUTH MPKBY AGENT, POSTEL AGENT, NABAGHANTI PS HIRAPUR, P.O. BURNPUR, BURDWAN-713325 WEST BENGAL ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 13 OF 2018 (Against the Order dated 30/08/2017 in Appeal No. 1338/2014 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. SUB POST MASTER & 3 ORS. BURNPUR MARKET SUB POST OFFICE, BURNPUR, BURDWAN-713325 WEST BENGAL 2. SR. SUPERINTENDENT POST OFFICES ASANSOL DIVISION ASANSOL-713325 WEST BENGAL 3. CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL WEST BENGAL POSTAL CIRCLE, JOGAJOG BHABAN KOLKATA-700012 WEST BENGAL 4. GENERAL MANAGER, POSTAL ACCOUNTS & FINANCE 20B, ABDUL HAMID STREET, KOLKATA-700069 WEST BENGAL ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. TARAK NATH KUMBHAKAR & 2 ORS. R/O. KUMARPARA, HIRAPUR, P.O. BURNPUR, BURDWAN-713325 WEST BENGAL 2. SMT. JHAMA KUMBHAKAR R/O. KUMARPARA, HIRAPUR, P.O. BURNPUR, BURDWAN-713325 WEST BENGAL 3. SHRI SOUMEN ROUTH, POSTEL AGENT, NABAGHANTI PS HIRAPUR, P.O. BURNPUR, BURDWAN-713325 WEST BENGAL ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. C. VISWANATH,PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. SUBHASH CHANDRA,MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr Ramneek Mishra, Advocate For the Respondent : Soumya Dutta, Advocate
Dated : 03 Nov 2022 ORDER
PER MR SUBHASH CHANDRA
ORDER
1. This revision petition is filed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the 'Act') assails the order of the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Kolkata, West Bengal (in short, 'State Commission') in First Appeal No. A/1389/2014 dated 06.12.2016 arising out of order dated 17.09.2014 in complaint no. 67/2013 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Burdwan (in short, 'District Forum'). This order disposes off revision petitions in RP Nos.09, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of 2018 which arise from a similar grievance and the same order of the State Commission.
2. Respondents are holders of Monthly Income Scheme (MIS) accounts promoted by the Post Office in the Burnpur Market Sub Post Office, District Burdwan, West Bengal and had approached the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the ground that interest was not being remitted to their accounts. The petitioner herein had contested the complaint on the ground that the accounts had been opened by the complainants through the agency of someone who was not an authorised agent of the Post Office and that the MIS accounts were therefore fake placing no liability on the Post Office. The complaints were dismissed by the District Forum; however, the State Commission allowed the appeals and directed that the sum deposited in the MIS accounts be refunded with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing of the complaint before the District Forum till the date of final payment along with litigation costs. The petitioner has impugned the order of the State Commission allowing the appeal of the respondents. For the sake of convenience, facts of the case are taken from the petition filed against Shib Shankar Bhattacharya in RP 2356 of 2017, in whose case Rs.1,00,500/- was directed to be refunded with 9% interest from 26.03.2013, the date of filing the complaint before the District Forum with Rs.4000/- as cost.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records carefully.
4. The petitioner has contended no MIS account was ever opened by the respondent with it. The account claimed to have been opened by way of deposit through an agent of the Post Office is alleged to be a fake account as Soumen Routh, the savings agent who allegedly opened the account was facing a criminal case for cheating. According to the petitioner, account no. 13996 was opened on 01.06.2010 in the name of one Sambhu Acharyya with a deposit of Rs.60,000/-. No amount of Rs 1,00,500/- was deposited with the Post Office. The petitioner was therefore not an account holder of the MIS scheme and the entries in his passbook were fictitious and false. It was submitted that the Post Office had taken cognisance of the fraud committed and ordered an internal enquiry in the matter. The order of the District Forum dismissing the complaint is therefore correct according to the petitioner. The petitioner has also relied upon the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State Bank of India Vs. Smt Shyama Devi (1978) 3 SCC 399 which held that a fake entry in a customer's passbook made by an employee of a bank without proof of deposit by customer is no proof of deposit of money by the customer and the bank is not liable if an entry in passbook by an employee is proved to be false.
5. The respondent has contended that an MIS account (No. 13996) was opened by him on 28.05.2010 in the Post Office by one Soumen Routh, an agent for the MIS scheme. A passbook was issued containing the seal, stamp and signature of the petitioner viz. Post Master, Sub Post Office, Burnpur Market, Burdwan acknowledging receipt of Rs.1,00,500/- on that date. The respondent contends that he regularly drew monthly interest of Rs.670/- from this account from the Post Office. Interest was drawn between 08.07.2010 to 08.06.2012. Thereafter, payment of interest was refused on the ground that the passbook was fake and entries therein were false. It is averred that the original passbooks (Nos. 12426 and14723) were collected by the Post Office. It is contended that if the deposit had not been received by the Post Office, it would not have either credited the interest on it or paid it. It is also submitted that letter No. Fd/Burnpur Market Post Office/2012 dated 12.01.2013 issued by the Assistant Superintendent of Posts, Asansol, 1st Sub Division, Asansol 713301 to the Officer in Charge, Hirapur Police Station, Burnpur MDG, Burdwan 713325 ordering for an enquiry against Shri Tapan Kumar Mallick, the then Sub Post Master, Burnpur Market Post Office for issuing many fake passbooks in connivance with an SAS agent named Soumen Routh confirms the fact that the Post Office had indeed received the money. It is argued by the respondent that the passbook entries confirm the receipt of money and the status of the petitioner as account holder of Account No. 13996 under the MIS scheme and therefore for an act of collusion between the Post Master and the Agent, the depositor should not be made to suffer. The State Commission had therefore correctly allowed the appeal allowing refund of Rs.1,00,500 along with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint before the District Forum (26.03.2013) and litigation cost of Rs.4,000/-according to the petitioner.
6. The State Commission has noted in the impugned order that the xeroxed copy of disputed passbook contains the official seal and signature of concerned officials as well as entries relating to disbursement of MIS interest. It also notes that despite claiming that the passbook is a fake document, the petitioner (Post Office) has not denied that the signatures on different pages of the passbook do not belong to any of its existing or former officials. The FIR lodged with the Hirapur Police Station, Burdwan by the Assistant Superintendent of Posts, Asansol is a candid admission of the financial irregularities in its post office and the complicity of its officials necessitating a departmental enquiry and that for this reason the present petitioner cannot evade its responsibility as it is vicariously responsible for all acts of omission and commission of its employees. The petitioner contends, on the basis of Smt Shyama Devi (supra), that vicarious liability of employees cannot be fastened on it and that the onus was on the respondent in the present matter to prove that the amount was paid to an employee of the post office and that it was received by that employee in the course of his employee. As no receipt of deposit had been filed, this requirement of proof of deposit had not been discharged.
7. The respondent has placed reliance on the entries in the passbook which is disputed by the petitioner. As pointed out by the State Commission, the entries and signatures in the passbook are not disputed by the petitioner although the document itself is claimed to be fake. As per documents submitted by the respondent, there is an entry in the passbook for Savings Bank Account No. 403777 dated 28.05.2010 indicating a withdrawal of Rs.1,00,500/- and another entry for the credit of the same amount (Rs 1,00,500/-) in account no. 13996 in the name of the respondent herein and two others. The petitioner has not denied the existence of Savings Bank account no. 403777 in the name of the respondent. No document relating to an MIS account in the name of Sambhu Acharyya as contended by the petitioner has also been brought on record. Nothing prevented the post office/petitioner from doing this especially since it contends that the MIS account no. 13996 did not stand in the name of the respondent and this record should certainly be available with it.
8. The ordering of an internal, departmental enquiry is not denied by the petitioner. However, it has not brought on record the outcome or current status of the departmental enquiry ordered despite the passage of nearly 9 years since it was ordered even though its conclusion is necessary for the case. It would be pertinent to note that the petitioner is a public office which cannot take shelter under the plea that vicarious liability cannot be latched on it even though it admits that there have been financial irregularities in its branch by its employees and that fraudulent records have been created as evidenced by the institution of an internal enquiry and filing of an FIR without concluding the enquiry instituted for the purpose. The respondent cannot be non-suited for the reason that the enquiry is underway or that the matter is sub-judice. It cannot also try and shield itself behind the argument that no proof of deposit has been provided when the purpose of a passbook is to record the transactions of the crediting and withdrawal of money by the account holder and there is a record of the crediting of the amount in question in the document. The conclusion of an enquiry ordered by a government department should take a reasonable duration of time and not be prolonged over an inordinate or indeterminate period of time. Depositors in a monthly income scheme instituted by the government are small investors who cannot be expected to wait indefinitely for their money to be refunded especially when the petitioner has kept the matter undecided for nearly 9 years which is an inordinately long period of time. Mere denial of the authenticity of the passbook without any evidence to conclusively prove this allegation after such a long lapse of time would be extremely unjust to the depositor as a consumer of the services of the post office. Reliance of the petitioner Smt Shyama Devi (supra) is not justified as the entries in the passbook are not yet proven to be false as the enquiry has not been concluded. The depositors cannot be made to continue to suffer for the sake of an internal procedural enquiry of the petitioner.
9. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that the impugned order does not suffer from any perversity or illegality. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed and the order of the State Commission is hereby affirmed.
10. The following RPS which emerges from the same order of the State Commission are also accordingly dismissed in terms of this order, as below:
(i) RP no.9 of 2018 - Smt Dipti Das, Shri Sanjib Das and Shri Rajib Das has opened two joint MIS Accounts with Sub Post Office, Burnpur Market, Burdwan on 02.02.2010 by depositing Rs.9,00,000/- through the SAS agent - Mr Soumen Routh. Impugned order allowed the appeal for repayment of Rs.9,00,000/- with 9% interest with effect from the date of filing of the complaint case before the District Forum till the full and final payment along with Rs.10,000/- as litigation costs. For the reasons in RP no. 2356 of 2017, the revision petition is dismissed and the order of the State Commission is affirmed.
(ii) RP no.10 of 2018 - Smt Sujata Sengupta and Pabitra Sengupta has opened one MIS Accounts with Sub Post Office, Burnpur Market, Burdwan on 10.11.2010 by depositing Rs.2,19,000/- through the SAS agent - Mr Soumen Routh. Impugned order allowed the appeal for repayment of Rs.2,19,000/- with 9% simple interest with effect from the date of filing of the complaint case before the District Forum till the full and final payment along with Rs.10,000/- as litigation costs. For the reasons in RP no. 2356 of 2017, the revision petition is dismissed and the order of the State Commission is affirmed.
(iii) RP no.11 of 2018 - Shri Debabrata Mazumder has opened two MIS Accounts with Sub Post Office, Burnpur Market, Burdwan on 16.05.2012 by depositing Rs.8,76,000/- through the SAS agent - Mr Soumen Routh. Impugned order allowed the appeal for repayment of Rs.8,76,000/- with 9% simple interest with effect from the date of filing of the complaint case before the District Forum till the full and final payment along with Rs.10,000/- as litigation costs. For the reasons in RP no. 2356 of 2017, the revision petition is dismissed and the order of the State Commission is affirmed.
(iv) RP no.12 of 2018 - Shri Sib Shankar Pal, Smt Jhuma Pal, Smt Urmilka Pal has opened three MIS Accounts with Sub Post Office, Burnpur Market, Burdwan on 25.03.2010 by depositing Rs.4,50,000/- through the SAS agent - Mr Soumen Routh. Impugned order allowed the appeal for repayment of Rs.4,50,000/- with 9% simple interest with effect from the date of filing of the complaint case before the District Forum till the full and final payment along with Rs.10,000/- as litigation costs. For the reasons in RP no. 2356 of 2017, the revision petition is dismissed and the order of the State Commission is affirmed.
(v) RP no.13 of 2018 - Shri Tarak Nath Kumbhakar and Smt Jhama Kumbhakar has opened four MIS Accounts with Sub Post Office, Burnpur Market, Burdwan on different dates by depositing Rs.4,20,000/- through the SAS agent - Mr Soumen Routh. Impugned order allowed the appeal for repayment of Rs.4,20,000/- with 9% simple interest with effect from the date of filing of the complaint case before the District Forum till the full and final payment along with Rs.10,000/- as litigation costs. For the reasons in RP no. 2356 of 2017, the revision petition is dismissed and the order of the State Commission is affirmed.
...................... C. VISWANATH PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... SUBHASH CHANDRA MEMBER