Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 500 (CHH)

SUB-POST MASTER, MANENDRAGARH v. KC. DEVNATH

2006-11-09

R.S.AWASTHI, V.K.AGARWAL, VEENA MISRA

body2006
ORDER As per Hon'ble Shri V.K. Agarwal, President :- 1. This appeal, under section 15 of tile Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 12.12.05 in complaint no.14/05 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Baikunthpur (hereinafter called District Forum for short) directing the Appellants/Post-Office to pay Rs. 26,00=00/-within 30 days with interest @ 9%p.a., Besides cost of Rs. 1,000=00/- was also awarded, 2. Indisputably, the Complainant/Respondent No-I had opened recurring deposited account with the Appellants/Post Office. Under the said account monthly installments of Rs,500=00/- were to be deposited for a period of 60 months, with the Appellants/Post-Office. 3. According to the complainant/Respondent No.1, he deposited the above instalments for 52 months amounting to Rs. 26,000=00/- through Agent/ Respondent No.-2 with the Appellants/Post Office. It was thus averred by the complainant that he was entitled to receive Rs.26,000=00/- with bonus, but the appellant only offered him Rs. 22,000=00/- under the said account. Aggrieved, he approached the District Forum and filed the complaint. 4. The present appellants in their reply admitted that Respondent No.2 was an agent of the Appellants/ Post-office. However, it was averred by them that the Complainant /Respondent No.-1 had only deposited instalment of Rs.500=00/for 44 months, and thus he deposited only Rs.22,000=00/-. Therefore, according to the Appellants/Post-office the complainant/Respondent No.1 was only entitled to receive Rs.22,000=00/- with interest etc. 5. Respondent No.-2, agent of the Appellants/Post-office, was absent in the District Forum and was proceeded against ex-parte. 6. The District Forum held that the Complainant/Respondent NO.1 is entitled to received Rs.26,000=00/- deposited by him. The appellant was therefore, directed to pay the said amount with interest etc. as mentioned above. 7. Learned Counsel for the appellants and Respondent No.1 were heard. None appeared for Respondent No.-2. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants mainly submitted that Respondent No.2 was not their agent and that any amount even if paid by the Respondent No.1 to Respondent NO.2 for being deposited with the Appellants/Post-office, would not amount to payment to the appellants; as the said amount was not deposited by the Respondent NO.1 with the Appellants/Post office. Hence, the complainant is not entitled to get Rs. 26,000=00/- as claimed by him. It was contended that amount maintained by the appellant, disclosed that sum of total Rs. 22,000=00/- in all was deposited by the Complainant/Respondent NO.1. Hence, the complainant is not entitled to get Rs. 26,000=00/- as claimed by him. It was contended that amount maintained by the appellant, disclosed that sum of total Rs. 22,000=00/- in all was deposited by the Complainant/Respondent NO.1. It was submitted that the Appellants are Willing to pay to the Complainant/Respondent No.1, the said amount. However, the complainant/ Respondent No.1 is not entitled to recover Rs.26000=00/- as alleged by him. 9. The learned counsel for the complainant/Respondent No.1, however, submitted that since 52 instalments of Rs.500=00/- each, amounting to Rs.26,000=00/- was deposited by him through the appellant's agent - Respondent No.2; hence he was entitled to receive Rs.26,000=00/- as has been directed by the District Forum. 10. In view of contentions as above, the only question to be considered is as to whether the payment made by the complainant/Respondent No.1 to Respondent No.2 for being deposited with the Appellant/Post-office would be treated as payment to the Appellants/Post-office. 11. It may be noticed in the above context that the Complainant/Respondent No.-1 has specifically pleaded in his complaint that the Respondent No.-2 was the agent of the Appellants/Post-office. There is no denial of the above averment by the appellants/post-office. In fact, the averments in the written reply submitted by the Appellant/Post-office; clearly go to show that they, in fact, accepted that Respondent NO.-2 was their agent. That being so, since the complainant /Respondent No.1 contended that he made payment to the Agent- Respondent No.2 of Rs.500=00/- for 52 months, the said amount would be treated as deposits made by the ,complainant with the Appellants/Post-office. 12. Learned counsel for the Appellant/Post-office in the above context referred to scheme called 'Mahila Pradhan Kshetriya Bachat Yojana’ and urged that the payment made to the agent ought to have been paid under the said 'Yojana' and since the Respondent No.-2-Agent was' not appointed by the authorised officer of the Appellant/post-office, hence, he was only to collect the amount from the complainant/depositor and in case of default by Respondent No.-2 the appellants could not be held liable. 13. We have considered the contentions as above. It may be pointed out at the outset that no such plea was raised by the appellants in their written version filed in the District Forum. 13. We have considered the contentions as above. It may be pointed out at the outset that no such plea was raised by the appellants in their written version filed in the District Forum. Moreover, reference to the 'Mahila Pradhan Kshetriya Bachat Yojana' has no bearing to the facts of the present case as the complainant/ Respondent No1 indisputably opened the account in the recurring deposit scheme of post-office and not under the aforementioned "Yojana' . Moreover, in view of categorical admission of the appellant in their written version that the Respondent No.-2 was their agent; payments made by the Complainant/Respondent NO.-1 to the said agent for being deposited in recurring deposit scheme of the Appellants/ Post office; the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, as above, cannot be accepted 14. In, view of above it is clear that the findings of the District Forum that the Complainant/Respondent No.1 had paid 52 instalments for being deposited in recurring account is justified. The said finding is affirmed. Consequently, the direction of the District Forum to the Appellants/Post office to pay to the Complainant/Respondent No-1 the amount deposited of Rs.26000=00/- deposited by him with interest is fully justified 15. In view of the above, this appeal has no substance. It is accordingly dismissed. The impugned order is affirmed. The appellant shall pay the cost of this appeal 10 the Respondent No.-1, which is quantified at Rs.1000=00/- (Rupees One thousand) only. Appeal Rejected.