SHIV AVTAR SINGH BAJWA vs POST MASTER, SECTOR 18, POST OFFICE

THE complainant Shri Shiv Avtar Singh Bajwa has filed this appeal against order dated 6.9.2002 passed in his Complaint Case No. 677 of 1999 filed against Post Master, Sector 18, Post Office, Chandigarh; Senior Superintendent, Post Offices, Sector 30, Chandigarh and Chief Post Master General, Chandigarh Circle, Chandigarh vide which the complaint case was dismissed. THE brief facts giving rise to this appeal are as under :

THE appellant/complainant opened National Saving Scheme (for short hereinafter referred to as NSS) Account No. 85055 with Post Master, Sector 18, Post Office, Chandigarh (O.P. No. 1) in the year 1989-90. He deposited a sum of Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- in the said account bringing the total amount of deposit as Rs. 30,000/-. THE said NSS account, it is alleged, was not operated upon by the appellant after the deposit of the aforesaid sum of Rs. 30,000/-. The appellant received a notice from the Income Tax Department informing him that he had withdrawn a sum of Rs. 46,942/- from the aforesaid NSS Account No. 85055 which required income tax deduction. The appellant enquired about the withdrawal of the said amount from the O.P. No. 1 - Post Office and he was informed that the entire amount had been withdrawn and the account stood closed. He filed a written application seeking details of withdrawal which was processed through and time was taken by the respondents in giving the reply. Then he contacted Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Sector 30, Chandigarh (O.P. No. 2) and handed over the written complaint dated 1.11.1995 to him. He also met Assistant Post Master who recorded his statement and told him that enquiry has been marked to some postal Inspector. It is alleged that some papers were also shown to him by the O.Ps. and he learnt that one Suresh Kumar had withdrawn the amount of Rs. 46,942/- from his account. The case of the appellant is that he never authorised Shri Suresh Kumar or for that matter any person to withdraw amount from his NSS Account aforesaid. He also contended that he did not know any Suresh Kumar. Since his grievance was not redressed, he filed the complaint case and alleged that a number of irregularities and illegalities material in nature had been committed by the O.Ps. to allow Shri Suresh Kumar to withdraw on treating him as his authorised agent and there was collusion between the said Suresh Kumar and some employee of Post Office and this amounted to deficiency in service. He prayed for payment of Rs. 46,942/- along with interest @ 30% and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental harassment.

The respondents put in appearance and a plea of bar of limitation was raised. They also took the plea that the case involved intricate questions of fact and law which could be appropriately decided by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. The District Forum repelled the plea of bar of limitation as also the dismissal of the complaint case involving complicated questions of law and facts on the ground that the complaint had been pending in the Forum since 12.8.1999 and period of more than three years had passed. Apart from it, parties had also led entire evidence and it would be bit harsh on the complainant to relegate him to the Civil Court. On facts, it was not disputed that the account had been opened in Sector 18 Post Office, Chandigarh on 26.12.1989 with initial deposit of Rs. 20,000/- and subsequently a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was deposited on 20.2.1990.

THE District Forum held that there was nothing fishy or irregular in the withdrawal of the amount and its payment being made to Shri Suresh Kumar, messenger of the complainant. THE District Forum further held that the complainant had furnished a mandatory declaration in Form 15(I) at the time of closure of his account which signifies that in his case tax was not deductible at source and, therefore, the tax at source was not deducted. A copy of the said declaration in Form 15(I) was forwarded to the Income Tax Department along with the schedule of tax deducted which was the requirement of the relevant rules. While dealing with the different dates in the postal stamps affixed on the withdrawal form, the District Forum recorded a finding in Para 11 that the right hand counter-foil of Annexure R-1 showed three dates i.e. 14.5.1994, 19.5.1994 and 21.5.1994. It was also pointed out that there are two postal stamps, one dated 14.5.1994 and other dated 19.5.1994. The complainant raised a plea that the transaction appeared to have taken about eight days from 14.5.1994 to 21.5.1994 and this aspect needed enquiry. The District Forum, however, held that the matter was very simple and had been explained by the O.Ps. who contended that when the application for withdrawal SB7 was tendered in the Post Office along with the Pass Book for final withdrawal, it was checked with the depositor Pass Book and Ledger and impressed with the date stamp 11.5.1994 after signatures of the depositor had been compared and tallied with the specimen signature on record as required under the rules. The Pass Book along with SB7 application for withdrawal was sent to Head Post Office, Chandigarh, for closure of the account and interest on the deposit was calculated and payment order was prepared by affixing the date stamp 14.5.1994 of Chandigarh Head Office. Then it was returned to Sector 18 Post Office for making payment and the third date stamp 19.5.1994 was affixed by the Sub Post Office, Sector 18, Chandigarh when the actual payment was made on 19.5.1994. The fourth handwritten date 21.5.1994 was mentioned on the SB7 by the official of the Chandigarh GPO of the Saving Bank Cheque Organisation to whom all the deposits and withdrawals vouchers are forwarded by the Sub Post Office for record and scrutiny.

THE District Forum repelled the averment of the complainant that he never applied for closure of the account and the account could not be closed without specific instructions from him. It was held that the amount at credit in the account is to be written in the application for withdrawal Form SB7 showing the balance as nil after withdrawal in the relevant column No. 7B and is to be tendered at the Post Office where the account stands and it has correctly been done in the present case. THE interest was to be calculated by the Head Post Office and sanction for closure is to be given by the Head Post Office and actual payment of total amount i.e. principal and interest is to be made by the Sub Post Office where the account stands. The District Forum after perusal of the record found that some sort of departmental enquiry was conducted in which we are satisfied that the payment had been correctly made to Suresh Kumar as authorised messenger of the complainant. The respondent did not detect it as a case of fraud or fabrication and as such the case was not handed over to the police. The plea of the complainant that the NSS Rules did not allow the depositor to enable any messenger to close the account, was not accepted by the District Forum which held that sanction for closure of the account was not dealt with by the Sub Post Office, Sector 18, Chandigarh but by the Head Office in Sector 17, Chandigarh which lends hue of credibility, genuineness and authenticity to the act of closure of the account. It was further held that since the entire amount in the account had been withdrawn by the authorised messenger of the complainant, it amounted to closure of the account. The District Forum accepted the submissions made on behalf of the respondents and held that the complainant had failed to prove his case regarding deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps. and consequently the complaint case was dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

WE have referred to in detail the reasons furnished by the District Forum in coming to the conclusion that the respondents acted under the authority provided to them under the relevant NSS Rules and they accepted the application for withdrawal sent through the messenger Shri Suresh Kumar by adopting the established procedure for withdrawal of the account or for that matter for closure of the account. The signatures of the holder of the account on the withdrawal slips were tallied with the specimen signatures kept in the Post Office and they tallied. Mr. G.C. Babbar, Advocate pointed out that in the left column of the withdrawal form, after mention of the amount of Rs. 46,516/-, the balance has been shown as Nil and this clearly indicate that the holder of the account intended to close the account and that is why the Pass Book along with the withdrawal form were forwarded to the Head Office for computation of up-to-date interest which was worked out and the total amount of Rs. 46,942/- was paid to the messenger Shri Suresh Kumar. WE have referred in detail the various postal stamps which have been appreciated correctly by the District Forum. There is no credible evidence on record to show that there were something fishy in the transaction and there was some collusion between Shri Suresh Kumar and some employee of the Post Office which is being submitted by the learned Counsel for the complainant.

THE District Forum, in our considered opinion, rightly dismissed the complaint. THE appeal lacks merit and is dismissed. Under the circumstances of the case, the costs shall be borne by the parties themselves. Copies of this judgment be sent to the parties free of charge. Appeal dismissed.