CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL J AND K CIRCLE vs GHULAM MOHAMMAD KUMAR

THE appellants filed this appeal on 7/3/2005 whereby order dated 30/1/2004 passed by the Divisional Consumer Forum (hereinafter to be referred to as Forum) has been challenged. There is an application also made for condoning the delay but its presentation in the Commission is not known. The appeal is time-barred by 65 days. For the reasons assigned in the application for condoning the delay, the delay is condoned and the appeal is being taken up for decision on its merits.

THE facts of the case in brief are that respondent No. 1 deposited an amount of Rs. 27,000 and respondent No. 2 deposited an amount of Rs. 600 under "kisan Vikas Patra Scheme" with the appellants in the year 1994. The said deposit was made with ADSPM Dialgam and the concerned dealing hand gave receipts of such deposits. The scheme was for a period of five and half years for the maturity day and the deposited amount was to be doubled in the month of May 2000. The concerned official of the appellants did not issue the KVP certificates but he had issued the receipts under the seal of the post office for the receipt of the said amount under his signatures. After making this deposit the respondents who are illiterate and poor villagers went to their homes and after the maturity time when they approached the appellants for getting the "cash amounts" of their deposits they are refused. The matter was reported in the headquarter of the appellants. On verification it was found that concerned official had misappropriated those amounts for himself and this was a case of criminal misappropriation. The matter was reported by the department for investigation to the CBI. The appellants had contested the complaint before the Forum on the plea that the deposit was not made in accordance with the prescribed rules and they were not liable to indemnify their erring employee. The Forum did not accept this plea of the appellants and has held in the impugned order like this: "if there is any fraud or embezzlement committed by any official of the department with regard to the money paid by the complainant to be deposited in the fixed terms of the post office, it being the internal matter of the department to take action against the person who committed fraud or embezzlement of the money. The common villager who deposited the amount in good faith with the employee of the department cannot suffer. The complainant has already surrendered the receipt issued by the department before the authorities. The OP apart from taken action against the culprit ought to have made the payment of the amount due to the maturity value to the complainant. The act of non-making the payment on the maturity date would definitely amount to deficiency in service. "

Taking the above stated view the Forum accepted the complaint and directed the appellants to pay Rs. 54,000 to respondent No. 1 and Rs. 1,200 to respondent No. 2 respectively along with interest @ 9% from May 2000 till full realisation. The appellants have challenged the order mainly on the ground that the Forum has overruled the prescribed rules for making the deposit in the "kisan Vikas Patras". Since the deposit was not made in accordance with the prescribed rules particularly Rule 56 (1) of Post Office Savings Banks Manual Volume Second, so the Forum has fallen into error by not considering the violation of the relevant rules and the impugned order suffers from patent illegality.

Heard the arguments.

MR. Mujeeb Fazli had taken time to produce Rule 56 (1) of Post Office Saving Banks Rules in order to advance his arguments that this deposit was made in contravention of the rule and respondents are not entitled to any relief because the deposit was made not in accordance with the prescribed rule and the procedure. Time was granted to him to produce the relevant rule upto 24/9/2007 but he has failed to produce any. We have thoughtfully considered the ground urged in the appeal as well as the submission being made by the Counsel of the appellant and find ourselves not in agreement with him on the plea that when a bona fide depositor goes a consumer in a post office to make a deposit of his hard earned money he goes with the belief that office is being run for the benefit of general public and not with ulterior motives to perpetuate crimes like cheating, forgery and criminal misappropriation, etc. The respondents depositors herein are rustic villagers and under bona fide belief they deposited Rs. 27,000. 00 and Rs. 600. 00 respectively in the year 1994 for the purchase of Kisan Vikas Patras under the scheme sponsored by the Postal Department of the Union Government of India. Unfortunately if the appellants herein had entrusted this job to such an employee who was indulging in the activities of forging the record and criminally misappropriating the amounts, it was their responsibility to recover that amount from the employer and a bona fide consumer had not to suffer for the criminal activities of that empoyee. The alleged receipts were issued by that employee under the seal of the concerned Post Office and this was not his private transaction with the respondents outside his official duty hours. The application of Rule 56 (1) of Post Office Savings Banks Rules has no legal force to take away the right accrued to the respondents herein as consumers under J and K Consumer Protection Act and absolve the appellants herein from their liability to reimburse them. The non-issuance of the Kisan Vikas Patras with the promised amount on the date of maturity amounts to "deficiency in service" and we cannot interfere with the finding of the Forum below which is in accordance with the law. In this of the matter, we find no merit in this appeal which is dismissed with cost of Rs. 4,000. 00. The impugned order is restored and appellants are directed to pay to respondent No. 1 a sum of Rs. 54,000. 00 along with interest @ 9% per annum from May 2000 till final payment is made as well as to pay Rs. 1,200 along with interest @ 9% per annum from May 2000 till full realisation is made to respondent No. 2. The record of the Forum be returned. Appeal dismissed.