PRADEEP KUMAR vs Post Master General And Ors.

FOOT -prints on the sands of time, are not made by sitting down. Our grand business is not to see, what lies dimly at a distance, but to do what lies, clearly at hand. This is one of the oldest case, which was filed in this Commission on 23.05.2001. Sh. Pradeep Kumar, the complainant No. 1 purchased ''Kisan Vikas Patras'' (in short, ''KVPs'') worth Rs. 32.60 lakhs in the joint name of his wife and himself, from the Post Office, details of which are given as follows: - - JUDGEMENT_53_LAWS(NCD)5_2015.jpg JUDGEMENT_53_LAWS(NCD)5_12015.jpg

THE above said KVPs were purchased from 1995 onwards, in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Those documents were to mature in the year 2000/2001. The complainant was transferred to Motihari in Bihar, who shifted to Bihar, but his family stayed at Lucknow at the residential address, 15, Bulandbagh, Lucknow. During the last week of February, 2000, Sh. Pradeep Kumar, complainant No. 1 desired to get all the KVPs transferred to Chowk Post Office. He approached the Post Master - OP -3, who informed him that for transfer of KVPs, on appropriate application, the process of verification, etc., is followed and after verifying the veracity of the KVPs from the issuing Post Office and its respective owners, transfer is made. The complainant was given impression that transfer was a tardy process which would require several visits to the concerned post offices. In the meantime, complainant No. 1 was introduced to Mrs. Rukhsana, OP -5 an agent of the said post office. The Complainant No. 1 was informed that he would not have to do anything at all and that OP -5 would take care of everything. It is alleged that complainant was misled by the staff of OP3 and was made to believe that without the assistance of the agent, transfer was not literally possible. It is alleged that this tantamounts to deficiency in service. OP -5 informed complainant No. 1 that she was working in the post office, for the last 15 years and that she would get everything done, without any difficulty. She informed complainant No. 1 that she will come to his residence on 03.03.2000 to see the papers.

ON 03.03.2000, OP -5 came to the residence of the complainants. In presence of Sh. Dinkar Tiwari and Sh. Jai Parkash Mittal, she went through the KVPs, assured the complainants to get the said KVPs transferred to the Chowk HPO, and got their signatures at the back. She also took the other KVPs which were yet to mature and the MIS pass books, in original, stating that they were necessarily required in the process of transfer. Thereafter, OP -5 affixed her stamp on a paper as a proof of receipt of the KVPs, etc. She took away KVPs worth Rs. 32.60 lakhs filed the receipts marked as Annexure C -1. OP -5 further informed them that application for transfer would be required at a later stage.

AFTER the lapse of one week, the complainants did not hear anything from the OP -5, but when contacted, she promised them that she would be coming to them soon. Further, she did not turn up. On 15.03.2000, complainant No. 1 left for his official duty in Motihari in Bihar. When Mrs. Raj Rani, complainant No. 2 contacted OP5, she was informed that it would take some time. In the month of June, 2000, it transpired that OP -5 had cheated many investors and had been arrested by the police. It also came to the light that the KVPs issued by their Post Office had been encashed from Yahia Ganj, Sub -Post Office and Lal Bagh Post Office. It transpired that KVPs worth Rs. 25,54,000/ - were encashed by the OP -5 while working in cahoots with Sh. M.K. Singh, Sub -Post Master, Yahia Ganj, Sub -Post -Office, Lucknow -OP -4, within a period of 30 consecutive days. It is alleged that OP -4 made the payment of such huge amounts in cash without verifying the details from the respective Post Offices from where the KVPs were issued. Secondly, as per rule 9 & 11 of the KVP Rules, production of identity slips are necessary before making payment. Thirdly, Rule 23 of the KVPs Rules, requires that exceeding Rs. 20,000/ -, the payment has to be made by cheque. Again even those KVPs, which were yet to mature, were got encashed by OP -4, in collision with OP -5. The complainants were residing at a distance of 800 mts. from the Yahia Ganj Sub -Post Office and the verification could have been made easily. The Post Office was deficient in service when the amount was encashed like this. It is alleged that all the OPs are jointly and severally liable for the said deficiency. It is explained that the complainant No. 1 had to suffer massive heart -attack and had to be hospitalized. Several letters were written to the OP -2 Assistant Superintendent of Post Office, letter dated 22.08.2000 Annexure -C -2, another letter to OP -2 Annexure -C3 etc. The complaint was also lodged with the police i.e. Annexure C -4. FIR was registered against OP -4 & OP -5. The OP -5 was in jail at the time of filing of this case. OP -4 was transferred from Yahiagang Sub -Post Office to the HPO Chowk after the incident. It also came to light that a well -organized racket was on, for years'', where the innocent consumers were being cheated and defrauded and there was none to look into their grievances. Ultimately, this complaint was filed with the following prayers: - -

"i) allow the instant complaint with costs;

i. direct the respondents to pay Rs. 25,54,000/ - on account of the KVPs which belonged to the complainants alongwith interest @ 18% p.a.

ii. direct the respondents to pay an amount of Rs. 1 lakh as compensation on account of the mental agony and harassment, alongwith interest @ 18% p.a.

iii. direct the respondents to pay Rs. 10,000/ - by way of litigation expenses;

iv. any other order/orders as this Hon''ble Commission may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the instant case and in the interest of justice".

IN their written version OPs -1, 2 & 3 listed the following defences. Sh. Pradeep Kumar, complainant in his written statement dated 28.08.2000 made before Police Station admitted to have signed the Kissan Vikas Patras in token of receipt of discharge value. Consequently. It was a deal between Shri Pradeep Kumar and Smt. Rukhsana NS Agent while discharging the certificates at Yahiaganj Post Office. Shri Pradeep and Smt. Raj Rani were identified by Smt. Rukhsana as NS Agent. The criminal case against Smt. Rukhsana was pending at the time when the written version dated 28.09.2002 was filed. It is contended that no irregularity has been committed when encashment of KVPs to the genuine holders on verification and identification. It is admitted that Smt. Rukhsana was appointed as NS Agent by the State Government to motivate the public to fetch investment to the Post Office. It was also pointed out that the latest instruction issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, vide letter No. F3/37/91 -NS II dated 08.11.1993 reads, "In the event of misappropriation of investors authority authorised by State Governments that State Government will bear the loss". The OP -5 was appointed by the State Government. It is contended that under these circumstances, the OPs -1 to 3 have got no vicarious liability. It is alleged that the complainants are not consumers. It is contended that OPs 1 to 3 are not responsible for the fraud committed by OP -4 in his individual capacity. Again, it is not an official act. It does not amount to unfair trade practice or deficiency in service, as such. This is a criminal act and offence triable, under the Indian Penal Code.

ACCORDING to Mr. M.K. Singh -OP -4, when the criminal case is pending, this case is not maintainable. The OP -4 has not violated any provisions of Law. He has paid the amount to the right persons after taking the acquaintance in the proper place. All the other allegations have been denied. After having subjected the evidence to a closet scrutiny, having heard the counsel for the parties at length and mulling over their written submissions, we have come to the following conclusion. Unfortunately, Smt. Rukhsana could not be traced out. Counsel for the parties argued that criminal case was pending against her and according to the counsel for the complainants there were allegations that she had transferred the amount to the under -world. This is painful and galling that the U.P. police could not recover the amount from her. Had the police recovered the amount from her, it was easy to solve this knotty problem. Again, there were different stories floated by the Advocates, about her. It was submitted that according to the information, she was suffering from cancer and has ultimately died. Another story propounded by OPs 1 to 3, was that she is alive, but her whereabouts are not yet known. The record reveals that she appeared through Sh. S.S. Yadav, Advocate on 21.11.2001. Vide order dated 29.08.2014, we proceeded ex -parte against OP -5.

THE most pertinent question which falls for consideration is, as to who is liable for the said amount. Counsel for the OPs -1, 2 & 3 produced a book before us, with the Heading, "Post Office Small Savings Schemes" Part One written by Sh. A.N. Dureja, Assistant Director General (Retd.) P & T Accounts & Finance Service [corrected upto 1st April, 2006]. Its Rule No. 19, runs as follows: - - "19. Payment of discharge value of Kisan Vikas Patras by cheque: - The discharge value of Kisan Vikas Patras if it is Rs. 20,000/ - or more should be paid by cheque only by the post offices as provided in Section 269 -T of the Income Tax Act.

[D.G. Posts letter No. 5 -20/UP -06/2000 -INV dated 28/29.8.2001]"

It is thus clear that this Rule came into force w.e.f. 28/29.8.2001.

PREVIOUSLY the Banks, Post -Offices and Customers were permitted to deal in cash payments that used to be a very wrong practice. It encouraged the black money. This must be borne in mind that the transaction in question took place, on 09.03.2000. At that time, the payment by cash was allowed. Consequently, no negligence can be attributed on the part of OPs -1, 2, 3 & 4. However, at the same time, it is surprising that an astronomical amount was handed over to an agent, in cash, it did not cross the mind of the Post Master and his officials that the same amount should not be given in cash to an agent. Except for this excusable fault, OPs -1, 2 & 3 cannot be saddled with any negligence or deficiency in service. Our attention was also invited to Rules 14 and 15 of Kisan Vikas Patra Rules which are reproduced as follows: - -

"14. Discharge of certificate: - (1) The person entitled to receive the amount due under a certificate shall, on its encashment, sign on the back thereof in token of having received the payment".

"15. Responsibility of the Post Office: - 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".

It is explained that the entire liability lies on the shoulders of OP -5.

THE story propounded by the complainants does not just stack up. They appear to be economical with the truth. It is difficult to fathom as to how one could hand over a number of KVPs involving colossal amount to an unknown agent. Furthermore, it was duly signed by them in receipt of the payment. The complainants have not denied their signatures. They must have signed the KVPs with open eyes and at their own peril. The story, involving transfer of the KVPs, appears to be an afterthought. One should not hand over the KVPs to an agent, sans the application for transfer. The absence of application for transfer is detrimental to the complainants. To add more colour to the tale, the complainant went on to sign the same, in token of receipt of the amount.

NOW , let us turn to the antecedents of the complainants. It must be borne in mind that the Complainant No. 1 is an educated person. The para No. 1 of the complaint mentions: - - "1. That the complainant No. 1 worked as General Manager, Sugar Mills and being in a transferable job had opportunity to serve in various capacities in the various districts of Uttar Pradesh. The complainant is now working with the Birlas as Executive President with the Eastern Sugar and Industries Ltd., Motihari Chini Udygo, East Champaran, Bihar.

The complainant is presently residing at the address mentioned above".

The qualifications of the complainant No. 2, were kept under the hat.

It is further notable that the complainants had no concern after handing over the KVPs to a stranger. They did not take any action in this regard and approached the problem, in a lackadaisical manner. After signing the KVPs, in token to receipt of the amount, they remained conspicuously silent, for three months. The silence for such a long time, is pernicious. It is well said: - -

"Turn on the prudent thy needful eyes.

Observe her Labours Sluggard and be Wise".

On the one hand, the complainants are harping on the point that their house was only at 800 mts. distance, but on the other hand, they did not take the trouble to enquire about their hefty amount, for a period of three months. They could have gone to the post office itself and tried to know the clear picture. It is well said that, "Teachers open the door but you must walk through it, yourself.

FOR all these reasons, we find that OPs -1, 2, 3 & 4 are not liable for the above said amount. However, OP -5 being a service provider, is liable to pay the entire amount, with interest. It is also surprising to note that the State Government did not act properly. Even the traitors were appointed as agents. We are reminded of the allegation against her that she was dealing with the under -world. She should have been appointed/posted, at such like sensitive job, after verification.

IN the light of the above discussion, we hereby dismiss the complaint against OPs - 1, 2, 3 & 4 and direct the Opposite Party No. 5 to pay a sum of Rs. 25,54,000/ -, along with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of release of the said amount from the Post Office, till its realization. She is also directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000/ - as compensation and Rs. 10,000/ -, as litigation expenses. Even her personal estate will be liable. It is also made clear that if the complainants are not able to recover the said amount due to non -availability of Smt. Rukhsana or otherwise, they have the liberty to sue the State Government for its omission and commission in this regard. So far as the question of limitation is concerned, the complainants can seek help from the celebrated authority in the case of Laxmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute [ : (1995) 3 Supreme Court Cases 583] and pursue the case, within a period of 6 months, from today, against the State Government of Uttar Pradesh.