SAMSUDDIN vs NESAR AHMEAD

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 13.10.1999 passed by District Consumer Forum, Kushinagar in Complaint Case No. 673/1999.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant opened a Savings Bank Account in the Post Office and deposited a sum of Rs. 12,500/-. It is alleged that a sum of Rs. 12,000/- was withdrawn from the account of the complainant. This fact came to the knowledge of the complainant when this matter was raised in the village. He went to examine the correctness of the fact in June, 1996, and came to know that a withdrawal form was presented with signatures and a sum of Rs. 12,000/- was withdrawn from the account. He thereafter went to the Post Master, but nothing was told to him. THE complainant tried to withdraw the money from the Post Office on 24.7.1997 but he could not get the amount. THE complainant made a complaint to the Superintendent of Post Office and higher Authorities but nothing was done. It is, therefore, alleged that the opposite party is responsible for payment of this much amount. The case of opposite party No. 3, the concerned Post Master, is that on 28.8.1995 a sum of Rs. 7,500/-, on 9.11.1985 and sum of Rs. 1,500/- and on 1.1.86 a sum of Rs. 4,500/- was deposited by the complainant. A sum of Rs. 5,000/- was withdrawn 15.11.1985 and a sum of Rs. 8,000/- was withdrawn of 6.1.1986. These entries of withdrawal were made in the pass book. The withdrawal voucher is kept for a period of 7 years only and thereafter it is destroyed. Now a sum of Rs. 8,021/- is due in the account of the complainant. Action has been taken against the Post Master. The claim of the complainant is denied by the opposite party Post Office.

Opposite party No. 1 in the written statement has alleged that the case is liable to be dismissed. It is wrong to say that a sum of Rs. 12,000/- was not withdrawn from the account of the complainant as alleged by him. The amounts which were withdrawn were duly entered in the pass book between 8.2.1986 and June, 1996. No amount was deposited in the pass book and no amount was also withdrawn from the same. If no account is operated for a period of three years, then it is declared to be a dead account. The account of the complainant was declared to be dead on account of no transaction for more than 3 years. It is wrong to say that the amount of Rs. 12,000/- which has been withdrawn, is on a fictitious withdrawal form. The amount was withdrawn by the complainant himself. The pass book of the account remains with the depositor. In the year 1986 the answering opposite party No. 1 the Post Master in the concerned Post Office and the complainant had withdrawn the amount and signed on the withdrawal form. The payment was made only after verification of the signature. This complaint has been filed just to harrass the opposite party and the claim of the complainant is also barred by limitation.

THE learned District Forum, after considering the case of the parties, decreed the claim of the complainant for refund of Rs. 12,000/- alongwith interest. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that previously a complaint was filed at Deoria. During its pendency another complaint was filed at Kushinagar which was decreed at Kushinagar. After this complaint was decreed an application was moved at Deoria for withdrawing of the complaint which was allowed. According to learned Counsel, when one complaint has been filed at Deoria, the complainant could not have filed another complaint at Kushinagar and the Kushinagar District Forum had no jurisdiction to decide the matter. The learned Counsel for the opposite party has argued that previously the jurisdiction of this case was at Deoria and later on District Kushinager was created and by way of a general order of the State Commission, the cases of Kushinagar pending at Deoria were transferred, but this case was not sent there and therefore, an application was moved at Deoria on 8.10.1999 for withdrawal of the case. In this application it was clearly mentioned that a case has already been filed at District Forum, Kushinagar. This application was allowed by the District Forum, Deoria on 21.10.1999. This order was passed after the complaint at Kushinagar was decreed on 13.10.1999. We find that the application for withdrawal had been moved on 8.10.1999 before the case was decreed at Kushinagar. Thus in view of these facts we do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the learned District Forum, Kushinagar because there was sufficient grounds for withdrawal of the complaint at Deoria with a separate District Forum had been created at Kushinagar.

LEARNED Counsel for the opposite party has further argued that the complaint was barred by limitation as the complainant had come to know that the amount has been withdrawn in the year 1986, but the complaint was filed in the year 1997. This fact is wrong because a perusal of complaint goes to show that when he visited the Post Office in June, 1996 he came to know that a sum of Rs. 12,000/- has been fraudulently withdrawn from his account by making a forged signature on the withdrawal form. According to him this forgery was done in the year 1986-87, but the complainant alleges that he came to know about this fact only in the month of June, 1996. Therefore, the complaint filed by him in the year 1997 is within the limitation because the period of limitation prescribed for filing suit is two years from the date of commencement of cause of action. Thus we find that the suit is within time. Learned Counsel for the appellant has further argued that the complainant has failed to prove that the amount was withdrawn through withdrawal form on which the complainant did not sign. There is no evidence on record to prove this fact. The original voucher by which the withdrawal of Rs. 12,000/- has been made has been destroyed by the Post Office after its period had expired. The burden to prove that the amount has been withdrawn not by him, but by some other person fraudulently is on the complainant. The complainant has not been able to discharge this burden. There is no evidence on record to prove this fact. Opposite party No. 1, who was Post Master at the relevant time has categorically alleged that the signatures were of the complainant on the withdrawal voucher and only after verification the amount was allowed to be withdrawn. Therefore, in the face of this evidence it cannot be said that the opposite parties allowed fraudulent withdrawal of the amount in dispute. Thus the appeal is liable to be allowed. ORDER The appeal is allowed and the judgment and order of the learned District Forum are set aside and complaint is dismissed. Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules. Appeal allowed.