Case Law Details
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.
The National Commission observed that the State Commission has examined the whole issue at length in the light of relevant provisions of Post Office Saving Bank Manual and came to certain conclusions, relevant extract of which is reproduced below:
“The foregoing provision makes it abundantly clear that the respondent no.1 was under obligation to take some safeguard the account holder (consumer) from the clutches of unscrupulous persons.
Surprisingly enough, only on the basis of letter given by appellant no.1 to respondent no.1 authorising Sri Souvik Bhattacharjee ( son of respondent no.2) on 10.07.2007, the respondent no.1 allowed the said Souvik and one Biman Chatterjee to withdraw the entire amount without verifying the reason for such premature withdrawal of six MIS and further without ascertaining from the appellant no.2 whether she had any consent in withdrawal the said amount. The letter given by appellant no.1 to the Sr. Post Master of Serampore Post Office dated 10.07.2007 does not contain any reason for such premature withdrawal.
It was observed that the State Commission has held that OP No.1 (Petitioners herein) was found deficient in rendering services. Further, it was observed that the authorization dated 10.07.2007 issued by Complaint No.1 in favour of Ms. Souvik Bhattacharjee is “to collect papers” on behalf of Complainants. The account being operatable ‘Jointly’ by both Complainants, the action of OP No.1 / Petitioners in allowing withdrawal on the basis of signatures of one account holder is wrong. Moreover, allowing withdrawal without passbook was not in accordance with the Postal Department Rules. The State Commission has appropriately addressed the contention of parties raised in the appeal and rightly allowed the appeal.
Accordingly, the Petition was dismissed.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
1. The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondents as detailed above, 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 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. A/1126/2017 in which order dated 20.09.2017 of Hooghly District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no. 119 of 2009 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the Order dated 08.05.2019 of the State Commission and dismissing the Complaint.
2. While the Revision Petitioner(s) (hereinafter also referred to as OP) was Respondent and the Respondent(s) (hereinafter also referred to as Complainants) were Appellants in the said FA No. 1126/2017 before the State Commission, the Revision Petitioner was OP and Respondents were Complainant before the District Commission in the CC no. 119 of 2009.
3. Notice was issued to the Respondent(s) on 30.08.2019. Parties filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 23.08.2023 and 09.01.2023 respectively.
4. Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Commission and other case records are that in the year 2005, complainants opened six Monthly Income Scheme ( MIS) through Opposite Party No.2 before the District Forum ( Opposite Party No.2 is the Postal Agent in Serampore Head Post Office ) aggregating to Rs.4,80,000/-. The Complainants closed all the six MIS accounts before maturity, since they had to arrange for money for operation of their son at Vellore. 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 No.1276869. 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. On same day, complainants made an application to open a new saving account and on same date, account no. 1276869 was issued by OP No.1 but said new saving account has not been handed over to them till date. It is alleged by the complainant that OP No.2 convinced them and obtained their signatures on the withdrawal slip of the post office and placed them for withdrawal of interest of MIS from OP No.1. The complainants stated that they frequently visited the office of OP No.1 to know about the details of the closure of MIS but every time, OP No.1 told them that it will require six months time to complete the entire process of closure as the amount is a hefty one. It is stated by the complainants that they also made contact with the OP No.2 but she also told the same.
5. 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. Finding no other alternative, complainants wrote a letter to OP No.1 on 17.09.2007 but P No.1 did not pay any heed to the same. 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 Complainants, therefore, filed CC before the District Forum. The District Forum vide order dated 20.09.2017 dismissed the Complaint of the Complainants. Being aggrieved of the said dismissal, the Complainants filed FA No.1126 of 2017 before the State Commission and the State Commission allowed the appeal of the Complainants. Being aggrieved of the said order, the Petitioner – OP No.1 is before this Commission in the present RP.
6. Petitioners have challenged the said Order dated 08.05.2019 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:
i. Respondent no.1 and 2 issued the duly signed withdrawal slip with authorization letter in the name of Mr. Souvik Bhattacharjee, by their own wish and will, who is neither Agent nor employee of the Petitioner and at the time of anticipatory bail of Mr. Souvik Bhattacharjee, the matter was fully settled and amount of Rs.4,80,000/- cheated by Mr. Souvik Bhattacharjee was returned to the complainants and if complainant had any grievance for compensation or litigation charges, the same would have been taken from the wrongdoers at the time of settlement of matter.
ii. Complainants relinquished their right to claim compensation and litigation charges from the wrongdoers while the proceedings were before the criminal court.
iii. The fraud was not committed by the Petitioners but by Souvik Bhattacharjee and Minan Chatterjee. who are not authorized postal agents of Serampore Post Office.
iv. The complaint does not disclose any cause of action which could fall under Consumer Protection Act as complainants have omitted / relinquished their portion of claim in the criminal court and shall not sue the respondents qua any other and further claim(s).
v. The Petitioners have acted on the basis of standing rules of Post Office Saving Manual and after due diligence the withdrawal was allowed.
vi. Complainants suppressed the true and material facts in their complaint and filed the present complaint with ulterior motive. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in D. Sharma Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4270 of 2008.
vii. The State Commission passed the order in haste without considering the submissions of the Petitioner.
viii. Complainants are themselves negligent in handing over the signed withdrawal form to Mr. Souvik Bhattachargee and trying to shift their negligence on the Petitioner.
ix. Complainants have suppressed that they settled the matter with Souvik Bhattacharjee and received Rs.4,80,000/-.
x. Section 14 of the Government Saving Bank Act provides immunity against legal proceedings against the Secretary or any other officer of the Government.
xi. Petitioner is governed by Indian Post Office Rules, 1933 framed by Central Government in exercise of powers conferred on it by Indian Post Office Act, 1898.
xii. There is no requirement of authorization of both the account holders of B-type accounts in case of withdrawal of money from Joint B-type saving account under Rule 20 ( 1) of Post Office SB Manual Vol.I. Even the withdrawal form shows that respondent no.1 had duly authorized Souvik Bhattacharjee and Sri Biman Chatterjee as messenger to withdraw the entire amount from the Post Office Savings Account and said money was disbursed according to the Post Office Manual.
xiii. Respondent no.1 in his letter dated 10.07.2007 addressed to Sr. Post Master, Serampore HO authorized Souvik Bhattacharjee to close all the six MIS accounts and to transfer the amounts to their newly opened saving bank account no. 1276869.
7. Heard counsels of both sides. Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the RP, Written Arguments, and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing, are summed up below.
7.1. Counsel for the Petitioner argued that reason given by the complainant no.1 for closure of MIS before its maturity was for the purpose of starting a fresh investment and, therefore, the reason of his son being ill is not true on the face of the record. No fault on the part of the postal department has been found by the police officials and at the time of hearing the anticipatory bail application, the complainants have settled the matter with the Souvik Bhattacharjee and received the full and final payment from him and they also gave in writing to the police officials that they do not wish to continue with their complaint and, therefore, complainants are not entitled to initiate complaint against the postal department. Counsel argued that postal department honoured the authorization issued by complainants as per Rule 20 of the Post Office Saving Bank Manual (Vol.I) and complainants are bound by the said rules.
7.2 Counsel further argued that Petitioner is duty bound to honor the withdrawal slip presented by the authorized messenger of the account holder, after its due verification as per the norms, therefore there was no deficiency on their part. Complainants have neither impleaded Souvik Bhattacharjee and Biman Chatterjee nor even initiated separate litigation against them and both of them are not related to Petitioner and not even employees / agent of the Petitioner.
7.3 It is further argued that signatures were duly verified by the Petitioner who on the basis of standing rules of the Post Office Saving Manual and after proper due diligence allowed the withdrawal.
7.4 Respondent no.1 and 2, who appeared in person argued that postal department have given such a huge cash as withdrawal to their authorized postal agent, Mrs. Minati Bhattacharya, which is illegal as per the postal law and complainant received the entire six MIS amount of Rs.4,80,000/- from Mrs. Minati Bhattacharyya and this proves connivance of Postal department and authorised postal agent to misappropriate such huge cash illegally.
7.5. Respondents further argued that Postal department issued a circular bypassing the order of State Commission whereby it was directed that compensation money should be recovered from the salary of post master of Serampore posted at that time. Petitioner failed to produce the documents showing that they ( complainants) have received the passbook and as per postal law, no one can receive passbook other than the depositor and money cannot be withdrawn without the passbook.
7.6. Respondents also argued that MIS closure form is signed by only one depositor, whereas it was opened as jointly. As per postal rules, this should have been rejected and postal department should have called depositor and verified to get other joint holder to get it done but it was not done. Without postal stamp, money was given and according to postal rules, date / stamp and signature of postmaster should be there.
7.7. Date on withdrawal slip should be checked before withdrawal according to the postal rules but it was not done in this case.
7.8. A/c Payee cheque was not issued to the account holders in such a huge withdrawal.
7.9. Saving bank passbook was never handed over to the depositor i.e. respondents.
7.10. There is a crystal rule that PPF Agent cannot act as an Agent or Messenger of a depositor for the purpose of withdrawal from his /her saving bank account and postal department allowed their Authorized Agent Minati Bhattacharjee to withdraw the money illegally.
8. We have carefully gone through the Order of the State Commission. State Commission has examined the whole issue at length in the light of relevant provisions of Post Office Saving Bank Manual and came to certain conclusions, relevant extract of which is reproduced below :
“The foregoing provision makes it abundantly clear that the respondent no.1 was under obligation to take some safeguard the account holder ( consumer ) from the clutches of unscrupulous persons. The provision goes to show that where there is reason for suspicion, careful enquiry should be made and the withdrawal should be allowed only if the result of the enquiry is satisfactory meaning thereby the respondent no.1 had an obligation to satisfy itself that the manner in which the prayer for withdrawal had been made was satisfactory. Evidently, all the six MIS stood in the joint names of the appellants.
Surprisingly enough, only on the basis of letter given by appellant no.1 to respondent no.1 authorising Sri Souvik Bhattacharjee ( son of respondent no.2) on 10.07.2007, the respondent no.1 allowed the said Souvik and one Biman Chatterjee to withdraw the entire amount without verifying the reason for such premature withdrawal of six MIS and further without ascertaining from the appellant no.2 whether she had any consent in withdrawal the said amount. The letter given by appellant no.1 to the Sr. Post Master of Serampore Post Office dated 10.07.2007 does not contain any reason for such premature withdrawal. Therefore, a man of ordinary prudence normally will not allow the son of postal agent to withdraw the amount only on the basis of letter of appellant no.1 ignoring the signature of other joint account holder namely appellant no.2.
The Ld. District Forum ignoring the said fact has wrongly observed that by the letter dated 10.07.2007, complainants authorized two persons to collect the available money. It simply indicates non-application of judicial mind. The fact remains that the appellant no.1 authorised Sri Souvik Bhattacharjee to withdraw the money but it is not clear how another person named Biman Chatterjee, who is not an authorized agent was allowed to withdraw the amount. In all fairness, the respondent no.1 should have restrained Sri Souvik Bhattacharjee because the said Souvik was not appointed as postal agent by Sub Divisional officer, Serampore.”
9. State Commission has held that OP No.1 ( Petitioners herein) was found deficient in rendering services. State Commission has given valid reasons to set aside the findings of District Forum through a well reasoned order. We have seen all the relevant records and tend to agree with the findings of the State Commission. The authorization dated 10.07.2007 issued by Complaint No.1 in favour of Ms. Souvik Bhattacharjee is “ to collect papers” on behalf of Complainants. The account being opera table ‘Jointly’ by both Complainants, the action of OP No.1 / Petitioners in allowing withdrawal on the basis of signatures of one account holder is wrong. Moreover, allowing withdrawal without passbook was not in accordance with the Postal Department Rules. The State Commission has appropriately addressed the contention of parties raised in the appeal and rightly allowed the appeal. No new law points have been raised by the Petitioners. As was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rubi Chandra Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2011) 11 SCC 269], the scope in a Revision Petition is limited. Such powers can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order. In Sunil Kumar Maity Vs. State Bank of India & Ors. [AIR (2022) SC 577], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.” We find no illegality or material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order of the State Commission, hence the same is upheld. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- to the respondents herein ( in addition to the cost awarded by the State Commission). All payments to be made to the respondents herein within two months of the date of this order in accordance with the order of the State Commission, along with interest w.e.f. 08.07.2019 ( two months from the date of order of State Commission) till the date of actual payment.
10. The pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off.
Author Bio
