Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 96 (UTT)

Anil Kumar Garg v. P. M. G. Agra

2001-06-11

D.D.BAHUGUNA, K.C.BHARGAVA, RACHNA

body2001
JUDGMENT K. C. Bhargava, President : This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 30.8.1994 passed by President of the District Consumer Forum, Agra in Complaint Case No. 485/1992 and the order dated 1.10.1994 passed by the Members in the same complaint case. 2. The facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainants had opened an account in the name of their daughters Sunita Garg and Saritarani Garg in the Post Office, Gokulpura, Agra before 3.2.1981 There were five accounts. The amounts de posited in the accounts were as follows: 1. Rs. 12,045.00 2. Rs. 2,708.02 3. Rs. 3,560.45 4. Rs. 4,652.05 5. Rs. 1,635.85 Total Rs. 24,601.37 3. In this way a total sum of Rs.24,601.37 were to be given to the complainants. This was a five year term deposit account. The complainants on maturity of these accounts took the amount. After adding some money he opened another term deposit account of Rs. 25,000/-. The entry in the pass-book was made of Rs.• 25,000/- but in the account of the Post Office, namely the ledger, the amount shown was Rs. 500/- only. 4. When on maturity of the account the complainant went to take the amount he was told that he has only deposited a sum of Rs.500 /-. The complainant made complaints to the Post Master General an other higher authorities but nothing was done. According to the complainant a sum of Rs. 24,500/- has embezzled from his account which the opposite parties are liable to pay. On the complaint of the complainant an enquiry was made and cases were launched against the Post Master and two other persons in the Criminal Court. 5. The opposite party in its written version has alleged that only sum of Rs. 500/ - was deposited on 3.2.1981 in the account. This account was opened through Sri R. K. Jain agent of the National Savings Scheme and he had asked for his commission. Before opening this account, the five accounts existing in the name of the daughters of the complainant were closed. It is further alleged that a report has been lodged with the police and a criminal case is pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate. It is alleged that the Post Office is not liable to pay Rs. 35,000/-. 6. The parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions. It is further alleged that a report has been lodged with the police and a criminal case is pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate. It is alleged that the Post Office is not liable to pay Rs. 35,000/-. 6. The parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions. The President of the District Forum decreed the claim of the complainant and directed the Postal Department to pay the amount on maturity taking into account that sum of Rs. 25,000/- was deposited on 3.2.198l. It was also directed that with effect from 3.2.1986 interest at the rate of 12% per annum shall also be payable. The complainant was also allowed damages of Rs. 5,000/-. It was further directed that the amount should be paid within a period of 60 days failing which the interest was to run at 18% per annum. 7. The Members by their majority judgment dismissed the complaint and directed the complainant to approach the proper Forum. 8. Aggrieved against the majority judgment, the complainants have come in appeal and have challenged the correctness of the order passed by the learned District Forum. 9. Inspite of service of notice, the opposite party Postal Department did not appear. Learned Counsel for the appellants were heard. 10. A perusal of file will go to show that the complainants had five accounts, a description of which has been made in the earlier part of the judgment. These accounts matured prior to 3.2.1981. On the maturity these amounts were withdrawn by the complainants and after adding some amount to it, another account of Rs.25,000/- was opened by the complainants. The entry in the pass-book, a copy of which is on record, goes to show that a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was deposited. This entry has been made by the clerk of the Post Office and the genuineness of this pass-book entry had not been denied by the Postal Department. According to the Postal Department, only a sum of Rs. 500/ - was deposited. Had the sum of Rs. 500/ - been deposited, the entry of Rs. 25,000/ - would not have been made in the passbook. The circumstance favouring the contention of the complainant it that prior to taking of this deposit, the complainant had taken the payment of Rs. 24,601.37 from the same Post Office. 500/ - was deposited. Had the sum of Rs. 500/ - been deposited, the entry of Rs. 25,000/ - would not have been made in the passbook. The circumstance favouring the contention of the complainant it that prior to taking of this deposit, the complainant had taken the payment of Rs. 24,601.37 from the same Post Office. He again opened an account in the term deposit after making the difference of few rupees to make it Rs 25,000/-. Even if the Postal Department enters in its documents Rs. 500/- only, then the complainant cannot be a\lowed to suffer on account of the laches of the Postal Department. The Postal Department is at fault in not entering the same amount in the ledger as was entered in the passbook. 11. This fact is also supported by the fact that a criminal case has been instituted against the defaulting clerks. If there was no mistake committed on behalf of the opposite party, then it would not have lodged report against the erring officials. 12. Thus we find that the minority judgment of the President is perfectly correct and no interference is required in this judgment. The majority judgment of the members is set aside and the judgment of President is liable to be confirmed. ORDER The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of the Majority Members dated 1.10.1994 is set aside and the complaint is decreed in terms of the judgment dated 30.8.1994 passed by the President of the District Forum. The appellant shall get a sum of Rs.2,000/- as cost of appeal. Let compliance of the order be made within a period of two months from today. Let copy as per rules be made available to the parties.