POST MASTER GENERAL ANDHRA PRADESH vs C HANUMANTHA RAO

-RESPONDENT/complainant, Mr. C. Hanumantha Rao, was the complainant before the District Forum, where he had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner.

VERY briefly stated the facts leading to filing the complaint were that it was the case of the complainant that he had deposited a sum of Rs. 55,000 with the third popposite party, the Post Master, Yousufguda Post Office, 1st Battallion, Hyderabad, under ''monthly Income Scheme'' for which receipt was issued with a ''seal'' of Post Office and signature of the Sub-Post Master and he was asked to come after few days for collection of the ''pass book''. But when the complainant went to the Post Office, the pass book was not given, the complainant got in touch with the Dy. Superintendent of Post Offices, Hyderabad City Division, who after hearing the complaint, assured that the pass book shall be issued. The Dy. Superintendent of Post Offices, also took original receipt given by the earlier Post Office and gave another receipt in his own hand writing. Despite all these efforts, the pass book was not issued by the opposite parties/petitioners before us. Hence, a complaint was filed before the District Forum with a prayer to issue pass book with the requisite entry as also credit/pay the arrears of interest along with cost. The matter was contested by the opposite parties stating that there were no official transactions between the parties, hence, question of issuing MIS Pass Book does not arise. Documents were filed by the respective parties and matter was argued beforte the District Forum, who after hearing the parties, allowed the complaint. Aggrieved by this order, an appeal was filed before hte State Commission, who after hearing the parties allowed the appeal only to the extent rate of interest was reduced from 9% p. a. to 6% p. a. Not satisfied with this, this revision petition has been filed before us by the petitioner/o. Ps. It is the case of the petitioner that since there was no transaction between the parties and no amount was deposited, the question of issuing of pass book does not arise. It was further submitted that the deposits in SB/rd/mis Account, are made in form of SB 103, and then a counter-foil of the pay-in slip is given to the customer. This was not followed in this case. Since there is no evidence of the petitioner having deposited money, the question of deficiency by way of not issuing pass book does not arise. After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perusal of material on record, we are left in no doubt that as per receipt issued under the seal and signature of the Sub-Post Masger acknowledging receipt of Rs. 55,000, (page 35 of the paper book) which is not rebutted, we are left in no doubt that Rs. 55,000 was paid by the complainant to the respondent opposite party, Post Master, Yousufguda Post Office. We are further strengthened in our view by the fact that only Post Master Yousufguda Post Office issued the receipt but on record there is receipt issued by Dy. Superintendent of Post Offices, Hyderabad. (Page 36 of the paper book) acknowledging the receipt of Rs. 55,000 from the complainant on 19. 12. 2001. There is no evidence brought on record whatsoever by the petitioner, by way of any affidavit either of the then Post Master who has issued the receipt on 19. 12. 2001 or of the Dy. Superintendent of Post Office of Hyderabad, rebutting that these receipts were not issued by them. A layman who goes to deposit the amount for a certain scheme is not aware of the internal procedure. In this case,the receipt of money stands acknowledged by way of the two documents brought on record signed by the two Post Masters of Hyderabad, if after receipt of this amount, the pass book is not issued, it is a clear case of deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner. In the aforementioned circumstances, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the District Forum as affirmed by the State Commission with a minor modification in the rate of interest, does not call for our interference in revisional jurisdiction, in view of which, we find no merit in this revision petition, hence dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.