Allowing in withdrawal of amount by violating ‘Postal Department Rules’ would constitute ‘Deficiency in Service’

Senior Post Master Serampore Head Post Office Vs Jayanta Goswami & 2 Ors. (NCDRC Delhi)

Conclusion: In present facts of the case, NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI (NCDRC) upheld the observations made by the State Commission wherein it was held that allowing to withdraw the entire amount without verifying the reason for such premature withdrawal of six Monthly Income Scheme and further without ascertaining the consent in withdrawal of the said amount would constitute ‘deficiency in Service’ as it was against ‘Postal Department Rules’.

Facts: In present facts of the case, the Revision Petition (RP) was filed under section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 08.05.2019 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal.

Brief facts of the case were that in the year 2005, complainants opened six Monthly Income Scheme (MIS) through Opposite Party No.2 (the Postal Agent in Serampore Head Post Office) aggregating to Rs.4,80,000/-. The Complainants closed all the six MIS accounts before maturity. On 10.07.2017, complainant no.1 on the instruction of the OPs made an authorization letter stating that they are eager to close down all the six MIS and requested the OP No.1 – Petitioner to transfer the amount to their saving account. Complainant no.1 authorised Sri Souvik Chatterjee, son of OP No.2 (Smt. Minati Bhattacharjee) to collect the papers regarding the six MIS on their behalf.

Subsequently, complainants came to know that OP No.2 has absconded and on 03.09.2007 complainant no.1 made a written representation informing OP No.1 not to allow OP No.2 to withdraw any amount from their account but the OP No.1 reported to them that all the amount of the six MIS have been transferred on the date of application to their saving account. It is alleged by the complainants that OP No.1 in connivance with other dealing staff and OP No.2 withdrew the entire amount, which amounts to deficiency in service. The District Forum vide order dated 20.09.2017 dismissed the Complaint of the Complainants. The State Commission allowed the appeal of the Complainants.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.