State Of Punjab And Anr. vs Amar Deep Kaur And Ors.

THERE is a delay of 92 days in filing these revision petitions. In the application for condonation of delay, it is stated that the State Government officers had been busy in conducting elections for Panchayati Raj Institutions, therefore, there has been delay, etc. For the reasons stated in this application, we hereby condone the delay.

RP Nos. 3551, 3552 and 3553 of 2008 are similar matters emanating; from a common order passed by the State Commission on 29.2.2008, hence we heard them together and propose to pass a common order. As a lead case, RP No. 3551 of 2008 is analysed.

THE petitioners were opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 before the District Forum. O.P. No. 5, Akhil Gupta is an agent of the opposite parties, O.P. No. 6 is the District Saving Officer, Sangrur and O.P. No. 7 is the Sate of Punjab, Representative to the Deputy Commissioner/District Collector, Sangrur. For the sake of convenience we will take up the case of Ms. Amardeep Kaur as a lead case.

IT is the case of the complainant, Amardeep Kaur that Shri Akhil Gupta, who was authorized to collect the amount from the consumers to be deposited in the Post Office for which he was receiving commission from the opposite parties. Shri Akhil Gupta collected a sum of Rs. 2,30,000 from Amardeep Kaur during the months of November -December, 2003 and January 2004 and opened TD account Nos. 8302556, 8302602, 8302747, 8302755 and deposited a sum of Rs. 35,000 in each account and opened other account No. 8302762 and 8302763 and deposited Rs. 45,000 each for one year and handed over pass books issued by the Post Office, New Grain Market, Post Office, Sangrur to Ms. Kaur with due signature of the Sub Post Master, Post Office. Shri Gupta also handed over lucky coupons issued by the District Saving Officer, Sangrur (O.P. No. 6) after verifying that the deposits have been made in the Post ffice. Post Office had sent report of these deposits by Akhil Gupta and accordingly the District Saving Officer prepared the case for giving commission on the said deposit in favour of Shri Gupta whereupon the District Saving Officer issued lucky coupons on the diposited amount of Rs. 2, 30,000, in favour of Ms. Kaur, the complainant.

IT is the case of the complainant that Shri Gurmukhpal Singh, Post Office, New Grain Market, Sangrur informed her that there is only a deposit of Rs. 5,000 lying in each TD account as per record of the Post Office and therefore, criminal case has been registered against Shri Akhil Gupta. Accordingly, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties listed above, the complainant, Ms. Kaur filed a complaint before the District Forum seeking the following reliefs by directing the opposite parties to, (a) refund to the complainant, Ms. Kaur a sum of Rs. 2,30,000 deposited by her along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit till realization, (b) pay to her a sum of Rs. 50,000 on account of compensation for undergoing mental tension and harassment and (c) pay to her a sum of Rs. 2,200 on account of litigation expenses.

THE case was contested by O.P. Nos. 1 to 3, namely Union of India through Secretary, Telecom and Post, Sanchar Bhawan, New Delhi, Superintendent, Post Offices, Main, Sangrur and Sub Post Office, New Grain Market, Post Office, Sangrur raising legal objections on maintainability. Their case was that FIR in P.S. Kotwali, Sangrur has been lodged against O.P. Nos. 4 and 5, Shri Gurumukhpal Singh, Post Office, New Grain Market, Sangrur and Shri Akhil Gupta in respect of the deposit in dispute and the matter is sub judice. It is their contention that only Rs. 5,000 has been deposited in each of the TD account of the complainant through Shri Akhil Gupta. Further it was contended that as soon as the Superintendent of Post Offices, Main, Sangrur came to know that a fraud has been committed by Shri Akhil Gupta with the depositors, he issued a public notice and pasted the same on the public places and also informed all concerned and asked them to check their pass books from the concerned Post Offices.

THE District Saving Officer did not deny that SAS agency number 0127197 dated 20.4.2000 was issued to Shri Akhil Gupta and the said agency was attached with Sub Post Office, New Grain Market, Sangrur and lucky coupons were issued to him in advance. He after issuing the lucky coupons to the depositors has not been submitted any bill for claiming incentives. Further as soon as they came to the notice of the District Saving Officer and District Collector, Sangrur that a fraud has been committed by Shri Akhil Gupta, they immediately issued a public notice and pasted the same at the public places and also informed the general public through advertisement on city cable TV, etc.

THE District Collector, O.P. No. 7 resisted the complaint on the same grounds taken by O.P. No. 6. O.P. Nos. 4 and 5 did not contest the complaint and hence they were proceeded against ex parte on 23.3.2005. Rest of the parties have led evidence. After hearing the submissions made by the parties and also careful scrutiny of evidence and written submissions, the District Forum held that there is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of O.P. Nos. 1 to 3, 5 and 7. Accordingly, the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the O.P. Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 to: (a) Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 in lieu of compensation, plus, a further sum of Rs. 30,000 which is the amount entered in the ledger of OP No. 3 in six TD accounts i.e. Rs. 5,000 in each account, along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date, when the said amount fell due and payable to the complainant till realization;

(b) Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 1,000 as litigation expenses.

THE District Forum held that there was no deficiency in service against O.P. Nos. 4 and 6, hence the complaint was dismissed against them. The District Forum further ordered that in the first instance, the said amount shall be recoverable by the complainant from postal authority i.e. O.P. Nos. 1 to 3 or O.P. No. 7, the District Collector, who may later recover the same from O.P. No. 5, Shri Akhil Gupta.

AGGRIEVED by the order of the District Forum, the Union of India (U.O.I.) as well as the State of Punjab filed appeals before the State Commission. The State Commission on reappraisal of the facts and evidence before it held that Mr Akhil Gupta is the agent of the State Commission and not an agent of the Central Government. Accordingly, allowed the appeal of the UOI and dismissed the appeal of the State of Punjab. The State Commission held that Government of Punjab is liable for payment of the amount awarded by the District Forum along with Rs. 10,000 as cost.

DISSATISFI ED by the order of the State Commission, the State of Punjab has filed this revision petition before us.

THE main issue to be decided is whether Akhil Gupta is the agent of the State Government or the Central Government. The Government of India has floated from time -to -time different National Small Saving Schemes and the State Governments are permitted to participate in the said schemes. The State Governments in their anxiety to get benefits under the scheme fix targets to the different departments of the State Government for collecting funds under these schemes, as a major chunk of the amount collected would flow back to their respective States. Accordingly the State Government had authorized the Deputy Commissioners/ District Magistrates to appoint Small Saving Agents for collection of money under these Schemes. The Deputy Commissioner in turn could delegate this power to any Gazetted Officer like the Tehsildar or Block Development Officer or the local head of office of different Government departments. It is clear from the Affidavit of Shri M L Sharma, Sr. District Small Saving Officer, Sangrur, that Shri Akhil Gupta was appointed as an agent to collect the money on behalf of the depositors.

AN extract of the affidavit of Shri M.L. Sharma, Senior District Small Saving Officer, Sangrur is reproduced below: "That a S.A.S. agency No. 0127197 dated 20th April, 2000 was issued to Akhil Gupta son of Shri Brahm, resident of Krishna Basti, Sangrur by the District Transport Officer on behalf of opposite party No. 7. The said agency was attached with the Sub Post Office, New Grain Market, Sangrur. The agency was issued to the opposite party No. 5 under the rules and at the time of issuance of the said agency the necessary documents as well as sureties were taken by the opposite party No. 6 from the opposite party No. 5. That as per the schemes, time -to -time issued by the Punjab Government, Finance Department (Director Small Savings), Lucky coupons were issued by the opposite party Nos. 6 and 7 to the opposite party No. 5. So, as per the scheme of Punjab Government, which was issued vide letter dated 30th September, 2003 i.e. 26th Lucky coupon scheme from 1.10.2003 to 31.3.2004, the lucky coupons were issued to opposite party No. 5 in advance."

THE above extract clearly indicates that Shri Akhil Gupta was appointed as an agent by the District Transport Officer on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate, Sangrur, Punjab. Therefore, he is an agent of the State Government and not the agent of the Central Government.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner urged that criminal cases are pending against the agent Shri Akhil Gupta, as well as Shri Gurmukhpal Singh, Sub Post Master, New Grain Market Post Office, Sangrur and the cases have not attained finality and it will not be prudent to wait till the outcome of the criminal proceedings before fixing any responsibility against the agent or against the Sub Post Master.

LEARNED Counsel for the complainants who are the respondents before us, drew our attention to the Affidavit of Shri M.L. Sharma (supra) Senior District Small Saving Officer, Sangrur in this regard.

LEARNED Counsel for the Union of India submitted that there is an agency system in implementing the small saving schemes and, the agents are appointed by the State Governments, hence, UOI is not liable to pay the amount. It is the case of the UOI that UOI is not responsible for the fraud committed by Shri Akhil Gupta. It is the case of the Post Office that the agent Akhil Gupta had prepared the RD Schedule for depositing the amount of Rs. 5,000 and subsequently figures 4 and 3 were added in front of Rs. 5,000.

IN this connection it is useful to look into the analysis of the State Commission which perused the documents at Exhibit R -5 pertaining to the notification issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs dated 8.11.1993, wherein it is stated that in the case of misappropriation of investors money by an agent appointed by the Appointing Authority authorized by the State Government, the State Government will be at loss.

READING Exhibit R -5 in conjunction with the affidavit filed by Shri M.L. Sharma, Senior District Small Saving Officer, we come to the irresistible conclusion that Shri Akhil Gupta is undoubtedly an agent of the State Government and State Government is squarely liable for mis -appropriation of investor''s money by the agent appointed by one of its authorized officers. Accordingly, we do not see any merit in these Revision Petitions, therefore, Revision Petitions are dismissed.

AS the consumers have been dragged upto the level of the National Commission, the revision petitioners shall pay Rs. 5,000 as cost to each one of the investors/complainants. R.Ps. dismissed.