This court dismissed a writ petition filed by the Union of India challenging the orders of the State Commission and District Forum which held respondents liable for fraud and deficiency in service regarding a postal savings account closure, finding the claim unsustainable.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.19670 OF 2006
ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice G.Krishna Mohan Reddy)
The writ petition is filed assailing the order dated 10.7.2006 passed in F.A.No.585 of 2006 on the file of the A.P.State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (for short ‘the State Commission’) confirming order dated 10.3.2006 in C.D.No.92 of 2005 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Adilabad District, (for short ‘District Forum’), whereby and whereunder relief claimed by the respondent No.1 was substantially granted. For the sake of convenience, we refer to the parties as arrayed before District Forum.
The background facts of the case are as follows: The Complainant is a businessman of Luxxettipet. He opened a MIS (Monthly Income Scheme) account with respondent No.2 by investing Rs.1,05,600/- on 17.6.1998 vide account No.2783. He used to receive monthly interest thereon through the third respondent, who was a postal savings agent appointed by authorities. He used to keep his passbook with the third respondent. From July, 2004, he did not receive any interest from the postal authorities. His claim is that when he approached the third respondent in that regard, the third respondent making false assurances got the matter postponed from time to time. On receiving information through a publication in news paper, he made enquiries and came to know that his MIS account was closed on 17.6.2004 on the ground that he received the corresponding entire principle amount, which is nothing but false. In fact, the second and third respondents being the principal and agent
colluded, collected and embezzled the amount and committed breach of trust. On a complaint given by the first respondent, thereby the case was registered in Crime No.6/05 on 03.02.2005 on the file of Luxettepet Police Station. The first and fourth respondents also failed to discharge their duties in that context. Hence, he filed the complaint to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to pay the principle amount of Rs.1,05,600/- with 18% interest and also Rs.10,000/- towards damages and Rs.500/- towards litigation costs.
On appreciation of the material available, the District Forum observed that the complainant signed the withdrawal form and handed over it to the third respondent, having good faith and taking advantage of that, the third respondent in collusion with the second respondent had withdrawn the amount without the knowledge of the complainant. In fact, the first and second respondents having claimed that the receipts were given in token of the payment made to the complainant failed to file those receipts to uphold their claim. As per the Post Office Savings Bank General Rules, 1981 (‘the Rules’ for brevity), the disbursing officer should follow the procedure prescribed in the rules and give cheque to the withdrawing depositor in case the amount exceeds Rs.20,000/-, but the first and second respondents failed to explain why they had not issued cheques accordingly. The District Forum also held that the third respondent colluded with the second respondent and there was negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the respondents 1 to 4 and directed to pay the matured amount of Rs.1,05,600/- with 9% interest per annum and also to pay court fee of Rs.200/- within one month, aggrieved by which, the first and second respondents preferred the appeal. The State Commission dismissed the appeal, against which the present writ petition is filed.
Learned counsel for the opposite parties would contend that
the first and second respondents followed the rules and procedure insofar as the payment of interest and matured amount are concerned. He has reiterated the stand taken before District Forum and State Commission. According to him, the District Forum erred in passing the order despite recording its findings that under MPKBY Scheme, as per Recurring Deposit Rules, 1981, under Section 5(3), the appointing authorities had to check the antecedents of the agents before their appointments. Ultimately, according to him, the State Commission also failed to appreciate the matter properly. Therefore, he seeks to set aside the order impugned.
It is quite significant that there is no dispute with regards to the deposit of the amount and payment of the corresponding interest and ultimate closure of the account, whereas the allegation is that the third respondent, being the agent of the complainant had fraudulently withdrawn the amount. In Writ Petition No.5292 of 2008 and batch a Division Bench of this Court, in which opposite parties are respondents under similar circumstances observed:
“Violating legal provisions and their own norms, the Sub Post Master, Luxettipet Post Office made cash payments of matured amounts to the postal agents and did not make the said payments by way of cheques issued in the names of the respective account holders. This is a gross irregularity committed by the Sub Post Master and it resulted in huge loss to the respective account holders who saved their monthly savings in recurring deposit accounts with a fond hope of getting consolidated amounts on maturity. The said irregularity is nothing but deficiency in service on the part of the Sub Post Master, Luxettipet, Adilabad District.
Unless the Sub Post Master, Luxettipet, Adilabad District had hand-in-glove with the postal agents, he would not have made cash payments of maturity amounts to the postal agents. If the Sub Post Master acted in a boanafide manner, he should have verified specimen signatures of the account holders from the specimen signature forms and should have satisfied himself about genuineness of the signatures contained in withdrawal forms. Assuming for a moment that the then Sub Post Master satisfied himself
with genuineness of signatures of the respective account holders, he should have made payments by way of crossed cheques in the names of respective account holders and should have handed over those crossed cheques to the agents for making over the same to the respective account holders after obtaining due receipts from each of them”
The above conclusions of this court carry this case also. In the result, the Writ Petition, as also the miscellaneous petition, stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
_____________ V.V.S.RAO, J
______________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J
13th April, 2012. kvs
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.19670 OF 2006
13th April, 2012
KVS
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY
Writ Petition No.19670 of 2010
Date: 13.04.2012
Union of India and another. …Petitioners
and
Sangam Lachaiah and four others. …Respondents
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to allow a writ petition challenging the orders of the State Commission and District Forum regarding the closure of an MIS account and withdrawal of funds.
Whether the orders passed by the lower consumer forums finding negligence and deficiency in service are sustainable for dismissal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Writ Petition No.5292 of 2008Referred¶10
Union of India
Sangam Lachaiah
V.V.SRAO
G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
