RAJENDRA PRASAD DASH vs UPALI SURAJITA DHAL

THE appellants are the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 respectively and Miss Upali Surajita Dhal - the sole respondent in C.D. Appeal No. 573 of 2003, who is respondent No. 1 in C.D. Appeal No. 1399 of 2003, is the complainant in C.D. Case No. 73 of 2001 filed before the District Forum, Jajpur.

MISS Upali Surajita Dhal, the complainant, had filed the aforesaid C.D. Case claiming compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 with cost of litigation against both the opposite parties/appellants for causing deficiency in service by purposefully depriving her from withdrawing money from her saving Bank account in spite of three cheques issued in that respect. Taking into consideration the case of both parties and documents filed by them, the District Forum, Jajpur as per orders dated 18.2.2002 held the opposite parties jointly and severally liable causing deficiency in service dishonouring the cheques of the complainant. Accordingly, the District Forum awarded moderate compensation of Rs. 5,000 for the inconvenience caused to the complainant by dishonouring her cheques and Rs. 2000 towards mental agony and Rs. 1000 as litigation expenses in favour of the complainant directing opposite party No. 1 to pay half of the entire awarded compensation amount to the complainant and the other half is to be recovered from the defaulting officer who would be found out in departmental inquiry.

Being aggrieved against the aforesaid orders dated 18.2.2002, the opposite parties have filed these appeals. As both appeals arise out of a common order and appeals were heard one after the other on one day, a common order is being passed for the sake of convenience in respect to both appeals.

THE case of the complainant in brief is that complainant has a Savings Bank Account No. 56280 with cheque facility in Jajpur Head Post Office and Jajpur Head Post Office has issued cheques beginning from 024821 to 024840 in her favour. Complainant had an amount of Rs. 2248.60 paise when she issued cheque No. 024821 for drawal of Rs. 1500 on 12.5.2001 in favour of self or bearer Ranjan Kumar Pradhan. She put her signature on the overleaf of the cheque. Ranjan Kumar Pradhan presented the cheque putting signature on the overleaf of the cheque. At that time, opposite party No. 1 Rajendra Prasad Dash, was the Savings Bank Counter Clerk. Though that was a bearer cheque and opposite party No. 1 should have honoured the cheque, yet he insisted for the complainant to personally come and receive the amount. Coming to know this from Ranjan, complainant endorsed another cheque bearing No. 24822 for same amount in the name of said Ranjan or bearer. As Ranjan had no time to go to the Post Office at that time, complainant scored his name and incorporated the name of Pradeepta Kumar Dhal as payee authenticating the cutting by her specimen signature and sent Sri Dhal to get the money. But opposite party No. 1 refused to honour the cheque on the ground of change of payee''s name. So, Sri Dhal returned back. For the self-same amount, complainant issued third cheque No. 024823 in the name of Sri Dhal or the bearer. Sri Dhal presented the cheque putting his signature on the overleaf of the cheque with the passbook to the opposite party No. 1. Opposite party No. 1 made necessary entries in the passbook on 12.5.2001 and returned it to Sri Dhal. Before encashing the cheque amount, opposite party No. 1 demanded previous two cheques from Sri Dhal. THE complainant, by that time had destroyed said cheques to avoid misutilisation. So, when Sri Dhal expressed inability to produce the same, opposite party No. 1 took the passbook from Sri Dhal, scored all entries made thereon and returned the passbook. But, opposite party No. 1 neither encashed the amount under third cheque nor returned said cheque bearing No. 024823. After this, when complainant approached opposite party No. 1 to give in writing for not honouring the cheque and to return her the cheque, opposite party No. 1 insulted and misbehaved with her and refused to return the cheque on the plea that it has become the property of the Post Office. In spite of request to help her in this respect, the Postmaster, Jajpur Head Post Office, opposite pary No. 2 joined hand with opposite party No. 1 and refused to assist her. She could not pay money to her creditor on that day though promised as opposite parties did not release money as per cheque. Due to these reasons, she was harassed and suffered from mental agony and loss. Since the opposite parties caused deficiency in service as aforesaid, the complainant filed the C.D. Case claiming damage of Rs. 5 lakh and cost of the case. Opposite party No. 1 filed two separate written versions on one day i.e. on 3.8.2001 and opposite party No. 2 filed written version on 7.11.2001. Both of them have seriously contested the case, and parties had filed xerox copies of certain documents and certain documents in original.

AS per his two written versions, opposite party No. 1 does not admit the complaint, a consumer under him. He has challenged the maintainability of the complaint as the Union of India represented through its Secretary, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi and C.P.M.G., Orissa, Circle Bhubaneswar have not been made parties in the case. So also, as the Superintendent of Post Office, Cuttack, North Division, Cuttack-1 and Deputy Postmaster, in short D.P.M., Jajpur Head Post Office who is to sanction withdrawal of more than Rs. 1,000 have not been made parties, the C.D. case against him and opposite party No. 2 is not maintainable. Opposite party No. 1 has challenged truthfulness of all the allegations made as per his written versions. The further case of opposite party No. 1 in view of his two written versions, in brief is that he being the Counter Assistant of the Head Post Office, in short, H.P.O., Jajpur, is only authorised to make payment up to an amount of Rs. 1,000 on event of drawal through a drawal slip or by a cheque after securitization and verification of the signature with specimen signature in the postal ledger by Ledger Assistant and D.P.M. Payment exceeding Rs. 1,000 through drawal slip or cheque would have to be sanctioned by D.P.M. In respect to presentation of cheque by the complainant, opposite party No. 1 has stated in para 3 and in subsequent paras of written version that on 12.5.2001 at 11.45 hours, a person identifying him as Ranjan Kumar Pradhan presented a cheque for the first time of the complainant which opposite party No. 1 presented to Ledger Assistant to verify signature in the cheque with specimen signature in the postal ledger and also before the D.P.M. to sanction for withdrawal as the amount for withdrawal exceeded Rs. 1,000. The cheque was returned as the signature of the person who issued the cheque did not tally with her specimen signature available in the postal ledger. Opposite party No. 1 denied to have insisted for the presence of the complainant to receive the amount under cheque as is alleged. His further case is that on the same day at 12.20 hours, messenger-Pradeepta Kumar Dhal presented the same cheque payable to Pradeepta Kumar Dhal where the name of Ranjan Kumar Pradhan was scored scoring being not authenticated by the account holder. Opposite party No. 1 told Sri Dhal that this time also signature of account holder did not tally with her specimen signature. Then at about 12.45 hours on the same day, Sri Dhal presented a fresh cheque of Upali Surajita Dhal with the passbook, opposite party No. 1 immediately handed over cheque for verification of signature to the D.P.M., who found that account holder''s signature in the cheque did not tally with her specimen signature. As that was a Saturday monetary transaction is closed at 1 p.m. So, opposite party No. 1 advised Sri Dhal to obtain proper identification from the account holder on the body of the cheque and to reach Post Office before 1 p.m. Sri Dhal gave assurance to come in time with proper identification of account holder. But, just before 1 p.m., Sri Dhal came and told that he failed to obtain necessary identification and requested to return the passbook. By that time, entry was made in the passbook with a hope that the cheque will be received with proper identification as account closing time was approaching. Therefore, opposite party No. 1 scored those entries in the passbook with the permission of the D.P.M. and Ledger Assistant. As per this written version, opposite party No. 1 denies knowledge about number of the cheques used by the complainant and issuance of a third cheque bearing No. 024823 in favour of Sri Dhal for the same amount. According to him, in order to bring him disrupt respect amongst the postal authorities and other employees with a mala fide intention with dangerous design, complainant is speaking about handing over of a third cheque bearing above number and has made false allegations against him. He has never misbehaved her. As per his other written version, opposite party No. 1 denied his responsibility in respect to drawal of Rs. 1,500 under a cheque. Though, in paragraph 5 of his second written version he has stated that unless the entire cheque book is produced, he cannot say anything about the 1, 2 and 3 cheques in question or any other cheque of the complainant yet in paragraph 6(b) of his said written version, he has categorically stated that first of all cheque bearing No. 024821 was presented for encashment but as the signature of the account holder in the cheque did not tally with the specimen signature on record, that was returned to the person who had produced it on the advice of the D.P.M. Next time another person came with the same cheque (No. 024821) where the name of the previous messenger was scored but the scoring was not authenticated by the account holder. This time also the signature of the account holder did not tally with her specimen signature in the record. Opposite party No. 1 had shown this cheque to the D.P.M. and the ledger clerk as per whose advice, the cheque was returned to the person who had presented it for compliance. Said messenger again came with another cheque bearing No. 024822 which was also shown to the D.P.M. in routine manner. Said cheque was again returned to the messenger as signature of account holder did not tally with her specimen signature. It is stated in this written version also that the at time of drawal of money through cheque, presentation of passbook was not necessary. But, as the passbook was produced along with said cheque, opposite party No. 1 had made entry thereon with an expectation that said cheque will be passed in due course. Therefore, when the cheque was not passed, he cancelled the entries made in the passbook and returned the passbook and cheque to the messenger with the permission of the D.P.M. Opposite party No. 1 denies about presentation of complainant''s cheque bearing No. 024823.

IT has been further stated in the second written version that the account for the day was closed at about 1 p.m. on that day. The complainant came with four persons at about 1.20 p.m. on that day and demanded for withdrawal. As she was refused, complainant abused in filthy and discourteous languages and threatened him for which he has been humiliated and was defamed in the presence of postal employees and other people for which he is entitled to get 10 lakh rupees from the complainant. Opposite party No. 1 challenged the claim of damage of 5 lakh rupees as assured and claimed that the case in the Consumer Fora is not maintainable Departmental proceeding and a police case as per his information is going on. This is how he had claimed for dismissal of the C.D. Case with cost in his favour.

THE Superintendent of Post Offices, Cuttack North Division-Sri Kunjabihari Rath has preferred the C.D. Appeal No. 1399 of 2003 and also had submitted written version in the C.D. Case No. 73 of 2007 for and on behalf of the opposite party No. 2. In the written version he has completely supported the written version of the opposite party No. 1 as far as the cheques and withdrawal of money are concerned. In his written version and appeal memo, the Superintendent of Post Office, in short, Superintendent of P.O. particularly in para 2 of his appeal petition states that the messenger of the complainant presented the first cheque No. 024821 for withdrawal of Rs. 1500 at the counter but the signature of the complainant did not tally with the specimen signature on record. THE opposite party No. 1 on instruction of the D.P.M. returned the cheque to the messenger for compliance of the defect. Second time another messenger presented the same cheque wherein the name of the previous messenger was scored out without authentication by the complainant. THE opposite party No. 1, on the advice of the D.P.M. returned the cheque for necessary compliance. He further states that again for the third time, the same messenger presented another cheque bearing Sl. No. 024822 and the signature of the complainant did not tally with the specimen signature on record. He further denies that the cheque bearing No. 024823 was either presented at the counter or was retained by opposite party No. 1 as alleged. THE Superintendent of P.O. in his verification of the appeal memo has stated that the above facts stated by him are all true to the best of his knowledge and as per records. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for both parties and perused the documents and xerox copies of documents filed from both sides. None of the parties have adduced evidence.

The most important points for consideration in these appeals are: (i) Whether the complainant presented three cheques or two cheques for withdrawal of Rs. 1500 from her Savings Bank Account on 12.5.2001 with the opposite parties and whether the opposite parties are justified in returning her earlier two cheques on the ground that her signature did not tally with her specimen signature on record with the opposite parties? and (ii) Whether opposite parties have committed deficiency in service for which they are liable to pay compensation to the complainant?

IN respect to the first point for consideration, the opposite party No. 1 who was on the Savings Bank Counter on the date of occurrence had submitted two written versions on the same day before the District Forum, wherein he has stated that unless the entire cheque book of the complainant is produced, he cannot say anything about the first, second and third or any other cheques. But, at the same time, when he states about the real facts of the case, he admits that the cheque No. 024821 was presented for encashment and the cheque was returned to the person who presented it for compliance as the signature did not tally with the specimen signature of the complainant. He further states that another person came with the same cheque i.e. cheque No. 024821 where the name of the previous messenger was scored out and a new name was written without authentication. This time also the cheque was returned as the signature of the complainant did not tally with her specimen signature. He further states that the second messenger came with another cheque bearing No. 024822 for the third time to the counter and as the signature of the complainant did not tally with her specimen signature in the official record, it was returned to the messenger and that the third cheque bearing No. 024823 was never presented in the counter The complainant has produced the xerox copy of the cheque No. 024821 which she produced through her messenger-Ranjan Kumar Pradhan for withdraw of Rs. 1,500. It seems this cheque was a self cheque and the bearer of this cheque was Ranjan Kumar Pradhan whose signature is there on the reverse of this cheque and on the reverse of the cheque, Upali Surajita Dhal who is the account holder and the complainant, has also signed. There is nothing to show in this cheque that the same cheque was presented again in the name of another messenger as is stated by opposite party Nos. 1 and 2. So, both opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 are not telling the truth that the first cheque bearing No. 024821 was presented in the Post Office Savings Bank Counter for two times with names of two different messengers. There is absolutely no scoring of any name in this first cheque. Both the opposite parties have not produced any Savings Bank record to prove their such statement though the opposite party No. 2 in his verification of appeal memo states that his statements are true as per records. It is apparent from this that the opposite parties/ appellants are suppressing the true state of affairs and have refrained from submitting records of the Post Office to substantiate their aforesaid plea. The second cheque bearing No. 024822 which was returned by the opposite parties refusing withdrawal of money contains the name of Ranjan Kumar Pradhan which has been scored out and authenticated by Upali Surajita Dhal and this cheque for the same amount stands in the name of Pradeepta Kumar Dhal. From the xerox copy of this cheque submitted by the complainant, it can be seen that the signature of Pradeepta Kumar Dhal is there on the reverse of this cheque. The statement of both opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 that the first cheque bearing No. 024821 was presented for the second time with the name of another messenger after scoring out the name of the first messenger without authentication is absolutely impossible and unbelievable when the first cheque is a self cheque. The opposite parties claim that the first cheque was presented by Pradeepta Kumar Dhal - the second messenger, is not correct in view of the xerox copy of the second cheque bearing No. 024822 where the name of the first messenger Ranjan Kumar Pradhan has been scored out with authentication and name of Pradeepta Kumar Dhal finds mention. It is, therefore, very reasonable to believe that it was not the first cheque, but this second cheque was presented for the second time before opposite party No. 1. Though opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 claim that the second cheque bearing No. 024822 was presented by Pradeepta Kumar Dhal for the third time, we found that this cheque was presented by Pradeepta Kumar Dhal (Sri P.K. Dhal) on the second time. Therefore, another cheque must have been produced by Sri P.K. Dhal as the opposite parties admit about production of a cheque of complainant for the third time. The cheque book issued by the Post Office Savings Bank in favour of the complainant has been produced by the complainant. It appears from the counter-foils of the cheque book that cheque No. 024821 was a self cheque and Ranjan Kumar Pradhan was the bearer of the cheque. Cheque No. 024822 was issued in favour of Ranjan Kumar Pradhan but his name has been scored out and was issued in the name of Pradeepta Kumar Dhal (Sri P.K. Dhal). Cheque No. 024823 was issued in the name of Pradeepta Kumar Dhal. All these three cheques for the same amount i.e. Rs. 1500 were sent by the complainant on the same day i.e. on 12.5.2001. The complainant has also produced the postal savings passbook bearing account No. 56280 wherein the withdrawal of Rs 1500 on 12.5.2001 has been entered and the date seal of the Post Office has been affixed but it has been scored out as cancelled. Post Office Savings Bank Manual, para 42(b) clearly mentions that when the Counter Assistant is satisfied that the signature of the depositor has been satisfactorily compared with the specimen signature on record, the warrant in the reverse of the application/cheque should be filled in and stamped. He will thereafter make an entry of withdrawal in the passbook and the passbook should be impressed with the date stamp and transfer the same to the ledger assistant for withdrawal. When this is the provision of the manual and when two previous cheques the opposite party No. 1 had returned as the signature of the complainant did not tally with the specimen signature on record, how could be filled up the passbook with the date stamp of the Post Office believing that third time the cheque which was presented will be passed for withdrawal admitting that opposite party No. 1 was dealing with the cheque with the permission and sanction of the D.P.M. and Ledger Assistant. It is, therefore, not possible to believe opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 that opposite party No. 1 made the entries in the passbook believing in good faith that the cheque for the third time presented will be cleared for withdrawal. It is, therefore, very reasonable that the third cheque which was presented was passed for payment after verification of specimen signature and, therefore, there was entry of warrant of payment on the reverse of the cheque and was stamped for which the necessary entries in the passbook has been made. This is what is prescribed in the procedure in para 42(b) of the Post Office Savings Bank Manual. Therefore, to suppress these facts, the opposite parties are taking the plea that a third cheque bearing No. 024823 was not presented by Sri P.K. Dhal before them. They have also not produced the Bank ledger book or any other record dealing with the account of withdrawals from Savings Bank Account on 12.5.2001. In view of all these materials, there is reason to believe that the third cheque bearing No. 024823 was produced before them and the opposite parties purposefully have neither paid the amount under cheque nor returned the cheque to the presenter.

FURTHER, the opposite parties have categorically stated that they have returned the first two cheques to the presenters as the signature of the complainant did not tally with the specimen signature of the complainant. In the District Forum, the opposite parties were directed to produce the specimen signature of the complainant while she applied to change her Savings Bank account to a cheque withdrawal facility. Instead of producing said specimen signature, the opposite parties produced the specimen signature of the complainant when she applied on 17.9.1990 to transfer her Savings Bank Account of the Ari Post Office to Jajpur Post Office Savings Bank. On the application of the complainant, the opposite parties have also produced two cheques dated 1.5.2000 and 17.2.2001 for Rs. 500 each, of the complainant which have been honoured and withdrawal has been allowed. The signature of the complainant on these cheques is of Upali Surajita Dhal which tallies with the signature of Upali Surajita Dhal appearing in cheque Nos. 024821 and No. 024822. If at all the opposite parties claim that the signature of the complainant on these two cheques did not tally with her specimen signature, opposite parties did not produce the original specimen signature on record in the Post Office either before the Forum or before the Commission with which they compared her signatures over these two cheques. This action seems to be deliberate on the part of the opposite parties and deliberate negligence of their official responsibility to provide service to the consumer complainant. As the action of the opposite parties in refusing withdrawal of money under the aforesaid two cheques and suppression of aforesaid third cheque are not done in good faith or due to unintentional negligence, opposite parties cannot take shelter under Section 14 of the Savings Bank Act. In view of our observation in the foregoing paragraphs, we hold the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service to the complainant deliberately and intentionally. There is no merit in both the appeals. Hence, both the appeals are dismissed without cost. Accordingly, we hold the opposite parties are personally and severally liable for causing mental agony and putting the complainant into trouble in clearing her debt for which the complainant has to be compensated. We have nothing to interfere with the amount of compensation and cost of litigation awarded by the District Forum, which is moderate and very liberal. But, the order dated 18.2.2002 of the District Forum needs modification in respect to the manner in which the compensation and litigation expenditure are to be recovered. Accordingly, we direct each of the opposite parties to pay to the complainant half of the total amount of compensation awarded by the District Forum within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which complainant shall recover aforesaid amount with prevailing rate of interest in due course of law. Records received from the District Forum may be sent back forthwith. Appeals dismissed.