The Sub Post Master, Kumbalangi vs Suraj V.S., on 28 January, 2011
On this day this appeal came before this commission the authorized agent of the appellants is present and there is no representation for the respondent/complainant. The authorized representative vehement ally argued on the grounds of appeal memorandum that the MPK BY agent was appointed by the District collector and that the appellants have no control over the agent that the agent Sasikala also, the District Collector, Block development officer are necessary parties to the complainant before the Forum below. But the Forum by their order dated 24.6.2004 in I.A. No. 317/2004 filed along with the complainant was dismissed. The I.A is having a prayer to implead the parties. The authorized agent also submitted that; according to the Rules that the pass book shall verify by the depositor, within 15 days of the deposit. The complainant is also responsible for non credit of the amount by the agent. The authorized representative submitted that to allow the appeal and to set aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below. He argued that the order passed by the Forum below is not accordance with the provisions of law and evidence. He cited the decision from the national commission, Union of India Vs. Shanker(A) No. 366 of 2001 dated 21st April, 2010. But this down loaded pages of the judgment no where discussed the very similar fact of this case. It is entirely different from the fact of this case. But this judgment not any way substantiates the argued of appellants in this case. In this case it is a very clear that the complainant remitted the entire amount through the agent of the Post office and directly in the post office. This is a National Savings Scheme. It is nothing but a banking business. The post office is not offering any welfare service or incentives to the complainant. She attracted the Post Office Savings Scheme due to its credibility and joined in the scheme. Otherwise she has other options to deposit either in bank or other financial investments. But the complainant preferred the post office as the most reliable and credible systems of the government of India. She deposited her hard earnings in this scheme. She need not bother about the agent. It is the duty of the Post Office/ National Savings Department or the government authorities to ensure that the agents are reliable persons and if necessary asked them to deposit caution amounts for the protections of the ordinary depositors. This commission is not seeing that no action was taken against the agent concerned and recovered amount from her. We heard the authorized representatives and perused the entire evidence from the case bundle and find that order passed by the Forum below is legally sustainable and there is no apparent error is seeing in this order to interfere. We uphold this order. It is the duty of the appellant and their subordinates to verify the entries of the pass book and other registers periodically. In this case their responsibility was put on the consumer/complainant.