POST MASTER, HEAD POST OFFICE vs Baljinder Singh

IT is an appeal against the order dated 18.8.1999 of District Consumer Disptues Redressal Forum, Muktsar (hereinafter called the District Forum).

BRIEFLY stated, the facts are that Baljinder Singh, respondent-complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) had purchased National Savings Certificates for Rs. 2,000/- on 26.2.1992 vide registration No. 1446 from Post Office, Muktsar. The certificates matured on 26.2.1998. It is alleged in the complaint that the said certificates were lost and the complainant had also forgotten the date of their maturity. On finding photo copies of the certificates, he had gone to the Post Master, Muktsar. The Post Master informed the complainant that payment of Rs. 4,030/- with regard to National Savings Certificates had already been made on 22.4.1998. He showed his inability to help the complainant. According to him, the record had been sent to Faridkot. It was alleged by the complainant that his National Saving Certificates had been encashed with the connivance of the officials of the appellants/opposite parties (hereinafter called the opposite parties). After this, the complainant had sent an application to the Superintendent, Post Offices, Faridkot, but no action was taken in the matter. The complainant, thus, claimed the amount of National Savings Certificates along with interest as well as compensation of Rs. 10,000/-. In their reply, the opposite parties stated in the preliminary objection that the complaint was time-barred and had been filed with mischievous motive in order to extort money by misusing the platform of the District Forum and it was liable to be dismissed with costs. On merits, the opposite parties stated that the complainant had purchased National Savings Certificates for Rs. 2,000/- on 26.2.1992 and the date of payment was 26.2.1998. Resultantly, the payment of this amount was made on 22.4.1998 and in token of receipt of that payment the complainant had put his signatures on the back side of the National Savings Certificates. So, the story of misplacement of those certificates was false; and neither the date of misplacement nor any report to that effect had been given to the police. The complainant had not come to the Forum with clean hands and had filed the complaint to get Rs. 4,030/- for second time maliciously. It was stated in the reply that payment was made to the complainant after verification and comparison of his signatures and there was no doubt about the identity of the complainant and opposite parties had received the copies of the National Savings Certificates bearing signatures of the complainant. It is further stated in the reply that the complaint be dismissed with compensatory costs.

The District Forum allowed the complaint and ordered that the opposite parties should pay to the complainant maturity amount of the National Savings Certificates, i.e. Rs. 4,030/-, along with interest @ 12% from the date of receipt of the order by the opposite parties till its realization by the complainant. Hence this appeal.

WE have heard the Counsel for the appellants and have gone through the record of the case minutely. The complainant, had tendered into evidence, Ex. C.1 letter to opposite party dated 9.11.1997, Ex. C2 postal receipts Exs. C3 & C4, Ex. C5 photo copy of NSC dated 10.12.1998 and Ex. C7 postal receipt No. 4271. The opposite parties had filed an affidavit of Superintendent, Post Offices, Faridkot as Ex. R-1. In the affidavit, the deponent, i.e., Superintendent, Post Offices, Faridkot had stated that the payment was made to the complainant after verification and comparison of signatures of complainant. Ex. R-3 is the application of the complainant which bears his signature. Exs. R2 and R4 are the photo copies of the National Savings Certificates, on the back of which signatures of the complainant are appended in token of having received the amount of maturity.

THE District Forum allowed the complaint on the grounds that the originals of Exs. R2, R3 and R4 were got examined by the District Forum. THE District Forum found apparent difference in the signatures of the complainant on Ex. R3 (application), and Exs. R2 and R4 (receipts of amounts). THE District Forum further held that the opposite parties had failed to comply with the Rules framed by the Postal Department itself. THE District Forum relied on the Rules, which are reproduced as under : THE Post Office shall not be responsible for any loss caused to a holder by any person obtaining possession of a certificate and fraudulently encashing it. 26B. Saving Certificate : 26(i) If the signatures of the holder of the certificates does not tally with that on record at the time of payment, his signature will be got attested by a respective person known to the Post Office or any other prescribed authorities in the following terms : THE applicant is known to me and he has signed in my presence. (ii) THE attestation of the thumb impression of the illiterate/blind holder of the certificate will be in the following terms : (iii) If the signature of the holder is attested by a scheduled Bank, the Forum of attestation may be in the following terms:

THE applicant is known to the bank and his signature is confirmed. We do not subscribe to the view expressed by the District Forum on the matter. It has been specifically stated by the opposite parties in their affidavit that the payment of the National Savings Certificates was made to the complainant after due verification and comparison of his signatures. The application of the complainant, Ex. R-3, which bears his signatures, has been produced on the record. Exs. R2 and R4, the photo copies of National Savings Certificates, on the back of which the signatures of the complainant were appended in token of having received the amount of maturity had also been produced on the record. Simply because the District Forum found difference in the signatures of the complainant on Exs. R.3, R.2 and R.4 could not be the clinching evidence that the complainant had not given any application and had not received the maturity amount of the National Savings Certificates. In such circumstances, the evidence of document expert should have been asked for by the District Forum. It could only be ascertained by production of relevant evidence on the record which could clinch the matter in favour or against the complainant. No such evidence is there on the file. It was not necessary in the circumstances of the case to further comply with any Rule when the opposite parties were sure that the complainant had submitted the required documents before encashing the maturity amount of the National Savings Certificates and the complainant did not produce any evidence to the contrary. In these circumstances, we do not find any clinching evidence in favour of the complainant that he did not encash the National Savings Certificates as alleged by the opposite parties. Consequently, this appeal is allowed and the complaint filed by the complainant before the District Forum is hereby dismissed. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the Civil Court to prove his case in accordance with law, if so advised. Appeal allowed. Complaint dismissed. Appeal allowed.