Post Master, Head Office Sonepat vs SANJAY GUPTA

THIS revision is directed against the order dated 26.08.2011 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana, Panchkula ( in short, ''the State Commission '') in FA No.1321/2005 whereby the State Commission accepted the appeal preferred by the respondent complainant and directed the petitioner/opposite party as under: ''''The respondents -opposite parties are directed to make the payment of interest as per the Monthly Income Scheme w.e.f 6.7.2004 onwards and also to make the payment of deposited amount which was to be paid by the respondents -opposite parties to the complainant monthly. The complainant is further awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/ - for facing un -necessary litigation for a period of about seven years and litigation expenses of Rs.11000/ -. The opposite parties are directed to comply with the order within a period of 60 days from the date of order ''''.

BRIEFLY stated the facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that petitioner floated a scheme known as Monthly Income Scheme (MIS) for the general public. The respondent complainant opted to join the said scheme and deposited Rs. 3.00 lacs in the said scheme for six years vide cheque no. 322277 dated 02.07.2004 drawn at HDFC Bank Sonepat Branch. The said cheque was issued in favour of the Post Master Sonepat. It is the case of the complainant that post master concerned told him that the MIS certificate shall be issued to him after encashment of the cheque. The cheque was cleared on 06.07.2004 and sum of Rs.3.00 lacs was debited in the account of the respondent. Despite that the opposite parties failed to issue the documents pertaining to opening of MIS account for Rs.3.00 lacs in favour of the complainant. Claiming this to be deficiency in service, the respondent filed the consumer complaint in District Forum Sonepat.

THE petitioner opposite parties resisted the complaint. The stand taken by the opposite parties in their written statement is that the respondent complainant had sent cheque of Rs.3.00 lacs through the agent Manohar Lal which was duly endorsed for opening Saving Bank account. The said cheque was presented at the Saving Bank counter alongwith SB3 and 103 for opening of the Saving Bank accounts. The said cheque was cleared on 06.07.2004. Thereafter, Saving Bank account No. 452392 for Rs.2.00 lacs in the joint of respondent Sanjay Gupta and Anusha Gupta and other Saving Bank account No.452393 for Rs.1.00 lakh was opened in the name of Anusha Gupta on 07.07.2004. Thereafter, sum of Rs.1,99,000/ - was withdrawn from Saving Bank account No.452392 and sum of Rs.99000/ - was withdrawn from Saving Bank Account No. 452393 through a messenger Manohar Lal on 10.09.2004 and 15.09.2004 respectively. It is also the case of the petitioners that there is no deficiency in service on their part. Actually, the inquiry into the allegations of the complainants was conducted but the complainants did not attend the inquiry proceedings despite of several notices issued to him. The District Forum on consideration of the evidence dismissed the complaint on the ground that intricate question of law and facts were involved which could be decided by the civil court of competent jurisdiction. The relevant observations of the District Forum are reproduced thus: ''''Accordingly, without going into the merits of the case, the present complaint stands dismissed since intricated question of law and facts are involved in the case in hand which can only be proved by both the parties by leading an elaborate evidence before the competent court of jurisdiction. The complainant, however, is at liberty to approach the competent civil court of jurisdiction to get his grievance redressed, if he is advised or desire so ''''.

BEING aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the respondent complainant preferred an appeal and learned State Commission after thorough analysis of pleadings and evidence allowed the appeal and directed the petitioner opposite as above.

LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order of the State Commission is not sustainable for the reason that the State Commission has failed to appreciate that the respondent complainant himself was guilty of gross negligence by not retaining the pass book pertaining to the Saving Bank account opened in his name and rather handed over those pass books to the ex agent Manohar Lal. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Rule 8 (2) of the Post Office Saving Account Rules 1981 which provides that it shall be the responsibility of the depositor to keep the passbook in safe custody. It is further contended that State Commission while deciding the appeal against the petitioner has failed to appreciate that although the cheque of opening of account was sent through the agent Manohar Lal, he was not even made a party to the consumer complaint and this raises a strong suspicion against the correctness of the allegations in the complaint. It is further argued that State Commission has failed to appreciate that postal authorities are only expected to exercise reasonable precaution while remitting the withdrawal in terms of Rule 36. Therefore, in view of the allegation of forgery, the District Forum had rightly relegated the respondent to civil court.

RESPONDENT no.1 on the contrary has argued in support of the impugned order and prays for dismissal of the revision petition.

WE have heard rival contention and perused the record.

ON careful perusal of the record, we do not find merit in the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that State Commission took pains to compare the specimen signatures of the petitioner with the specimen signatures of the petitioner on the withdrawal form with naked eye and he came to the conclusion that signatures did not tally. Therefore, after making reference to Rule 36 (a) of Post Office Savings Bank Manual Volume I which deals with procedure for withdrawal of the amount in cases where the signatures on withdrawal form differs from the specimen signatures concluded that the petitioner was guilty of deficiency in service and allowed the complaint. The relevant observations of the State Commission are reproduced thus: ''''Having heard the rival contentions of both the parties, the procedure for withdrawal of the amount has to be scrutinized, which is as under:

(a) If the signature of a depositor on an application for withdrawal differs from the specimen on record, payment will be made only after the depositor has been identified and his signature has been attested by the identifier (other than the agent or messenger of the depositor) who is known to the post office or by any one of the following manners with whose signature and seal of office the post office is familiar or on production of any proof mentioned in sub para (b).

Note: - Attestation of signature by a person will be in the following form:

'''' The Depositor is known to me and has signed in my presence ''''. The seal of the office must invariably be affixed. We have compared the specimen signature of Sanjay Gupta with the signature appended on the withdrawal form and the same differs with each other. The things which are visible with naked eyes cannot be ignored. In our view the Post Office authorities did not take care to tally the specimen signature of the complainant with the signature appended on the withdrawal form. The documents produced on the record reflect that the officials of the Post Office authorities did not follow the proper procedure at the time of withdrawing the amount by the messenger Manohar Lal and thus the opposite parties have been proved deficient in service. Reference is made to the judgment rendered by the Hon ''ble National Commission in Original Petition No. 98 of 2002 titled as ''''Uma Shankar Bhatt Versus Chairman -cum -Managing Director Punjab and Sind Bank and others '''' decided on 11.12.2007 wherein it has been observed that:

''''When the so -called letter was received by the Manager for transferring the amount on the alleged signature of the Company, the Bank ought to have suspected as to why the entire amount which was deposited with the bank is transferred in the account of third party. A Manager or cashier of a bank are expected to have a reasonable degree of intelligence and knowledge ordinarily required of a person in his position to befit to discharge their duties. If that is not done and the amount is disbursed to the third party, without verification of the signature of the depositor or doubting/suspecting as to why no cheque was used as an instrument of transfer, when the whole of the amount lying in the account was being transferred in one go, the fault lies with the bank. Further, if the officers of the bank were not the fraud they would have immediately inquired as to what was the necessity of transferring the entire bank balance by a simple letter ''''.

The facts of the instant case are fully attracted to Uma Shankar Bhatt ''s case (Supra). The evidence produced by the complainant has sufficiently proved the Post Office authorities negligent with respect to the withdrawal of the amount from the account of the complainant by the agent by forging signature of the complainant which do not tally with the specimen signature. District Consumer Forum has failed to appreciate the cogent and convincing evidence produced on record and thus erred in dismissing the complaint with the observation to file a civil suit before the Civil Court and as such the impugned order cannot be allowed to sustain.

As a sequel to our aforesaid discussions, this appeal is accepted and by setting aside the impugned order, the complaint is allowed. The respondents -opposite parties are directed to make the payment of interest as per the Monthly Income Scheme w.e.f 7.7.2004 onwards and also to make the payment of deposited amount which was to be paid by the respondents -opposite parties to the complainant monthly. The complainant is further awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/ - for facing un -necessary litigation for a period of about seven years and litigation expenses of Rs.11000/ -. The opposite parties are directed to comply with the order within a period of 60 days from the date of order ''''.

PHOTOCOPY of the relevant specimen signatures of Sanjay Gupta and Anusha Gupta as also photocopies of the relevant withdrawal forms are available on record. On naked eye comparison, we find a stark difference in the signatures. Despite this, there is nothing on the record to suggest that officials of the post office concerned followed the mandate of section Rule 36 of the Post Office Savings Bank Manual Volume I. Therefore, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the above said line of reasoning adopted by the State Commission. Therefore, there is no occasion for interfering with the order in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction.

LEARNED counsel for the petitioner tried to shift the blame on the respondent / complainant by taking a plea that the respondent was careless in not keeping the pass book in safe custody as required under rule 8 (2) of Post Office Saving Account Rules , 1981. We do not find merit in this contention because even if the petitioner has failed to keep the pass book in safe custody, this will not absolve the petitioner of its duty to follow the procedure for withdrawal of amount from the account of customer. Another contention of the petitioner is that cheque for opening of account was sent through agent Manohar Lal and, therefore, he should have been made party to the consumer complaint. This plea is apparently unfounded because the consumer complaint was filed on the allegation of deficiency in service on the part of post master.

IN view of the discussion above, the impugned order of the State Commission cannot be faulted. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.