Judgment:
Gurdev Singh, President:
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/complainant against the order dated 16.6.2011 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (in short, œDistrict Forum?), vide which the complaint filed by him under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for issuance of following directions to the opposite parties was dismissed:-
i) to credit the sum of Rs.70,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% till the realization of that amount;
ii) to issue duplicate copy of the PPF account showing entry of Rs.70,000/- having been deposited on 5.12.2008;
iii) to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the mental tension, loss and harassment suffered by him;
iv) to pay Rs.11,000/- as cost of the complaint.
2. The complainant averred in his complaint that he was having PPF account bearing No.627 since 1989 with respondent No.4/opposite party No.4 and had been depositing different amounts in that account through respondent No.5/opposite party No.5, as the agent of the other opposite parties. On 5.5.2005 he deposited a sum of Rs.70,000/- and again deposited Rs.70,000/- on 3.11.2006. On 4.3.2008 he deposited Rs.1,000/- and on 5.12.2008 he deposited Rs.70,000/-, vide receipts. The passbook was lying with opposite party No.5. As he wanted to withdraw the amount from that account, so he tried to find out that opposite party but failed to contact him. He applied for the issuance of duplicate passbook, vide application dated 4.2.2009 and opposite party No.2 refused to issue the duplicate passbook, vide letter dated 11.2.2009. The same was not issued in spite of the fact that he had been making oral and written requests to opposite parties No.3 and 4. He applied for the statement of account regarding this account under the Right to Information Act, 2005, and he was surprised to see from that statement that the sum of Rs.70,000/- had not been credited in his account, which was deposited on his behalf by opposite party No.5 on 5.12.2008. This amounts to gross negligence on the part of the other opposite parties. He wrote a letter to opposite party No.4 for looking into the matter and vide letter dated 17.6.2009 he was asked to produce the original receipt and the same was accordingly shown and the signature of the employee on that receipt was also identified. The non-crediting of that amount in his account amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. He was unable to withdraw the total amount from that account on account of non-crediting of that amount in his account.
3. Opposite parties No.1 to 4 filed a joint written reply, in which they admitted that the complainant had PPF Account No. 627 in the post office. They also admitted that he deposited Rs.70,000/- , Rs.70,000/- and Rs.1,000/- in that account on 5.5.2005, 3.11.2006 and 4.3.2008, respectively. They also admitted that the duplicate passbook was not issued to the complainant though he applied for the same and that the information was duly furnished to him under the Right to Information Act, 2005, regarding the details of the amounts contained in that account. While denying the other averments made in the complaint, they pleaded that no such amount of Rs.70,000/- was deposited by the complainant himself or through his agent on 5.12.2008. It appears that the date in the receipt is mutilated and the same is of some other date. The duplicate passbook was not issued as it was mentioned in the report of Sub Postmaster, Basti Guzan that there was difference in the amount and DLT and ground of loss of passbook was not satisfactory. The complainant was duly informed about the difference in the amount and the DLT and the non-issuance of the passbook on the said grounds. An enquiry was conducted into the matter and the enquiring authority asked for the original deposit receipt from the complainant, vide letter dated 17.6.2009, but no such original receipt was shown by him. Only the counterfoil was shown and it was informed by the inquiry officer, vide letter dated 10.8.2009, that there was cutting/over-writing in the receipt purported to have been issued by the Sub Postmaster, Basti Guzan on 5.12.2008. There cannot be any mental tension or harassment having been suffered by the complainant on account of the alleged deficiency in service on their part, as according to him the passbook was given by him to the agent/opposite party No.5.
4. Both the parties produced evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned counsel on their behalf dismissed the complaint, vide aforesaid order.
5. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and have carefully gone through the records of the case.
6. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that it was wrongly concluded by the District Forum that no such amount of Rs.70,000/- was deposited by the complainant in the account in question on 5.12.2008 through his agent by recording a finding to the effect that the deposit receipt bears the cutting on the date. The complainant should not have been penalized by the District Forum on the ground that he violated the instructions issued by the Department of Post and Telegraph dated 11.3.2011. The amount was handed over to the agent and for any such negligence on the part of the agent, opposite parties No.1 to 4 are responsible and the ruling cited on that point (Revision Petition No.200 of 2001 œUnion of India and others vs. Mr. Arun Borse?) was wrongly ignored by the District Forum on the ground that the same related to Kisan Vikas Patras. The law laid down therein is of universal application and there was no question of distinguishing the same that it was regarding Kisan Vikas Patras and not regarding PPF. He cited 2007 (1) CPC 720 (Union of India and Ors. v. Mr. Arun Borse and others) and on the basis thereof submitted that for the acts of the agent opposite parties No.1 to 4 are liable. They cannot escape their liability that the agent was appointed by the District Collector and, as such, they are not bound by the acts of that agent. From the evidence produced before the District Forum, it stands proved that the complainant deposited Rs.70,000/- on 5.12.2008 in his PPF account and the credit thereof was not given in that account and, as such, the directions, as mentioned in the complaint, are to be issued to the opposite parties.
7. On the other hand, it was submitted by the learned counsel for opposite parties No.1 to 4 that on the basis of evidence produced before the District Forum and the instructions applicable to the PPF accounts, correct findings were recorded by the District Forum and there is no ground for upsetting those well reasoned findings. It is apparent from the averments of the complainant that it was the agent, who misappropriated the sum of Rs.70,000/-. That agent was appointed by the District Collector and, as such, opposite parties No.1 to 4 cannot be made liable for the acts of that agent. In support of that submission he cited III (2009) CPJ 138 (NC) (STATE OF PUNJAB and ANR. vs. AMAR DEEP KAUR and ORS.). He further submitted that it was correctly observed by the District Forum that there is clear-cut interpolation regarding the dates in the receipt, vide which the sum of Rs.70,000/- is said to have been deposited on 5.12.2008. In that receipt the year 06 has been changed to 08. That makes it very much clear that no such amount of Rs.70,000/- was deposited by the complainant on 5.12.2008. He also tried to submit that the agency of said agent/opposite party No.5 was terminated by the District Collector and thereafter he had no authority to collect any such amount on behalf of opposite parties No.1 to 4. In support of that submission he referred to the information sought by him under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and filed in the appeal itself as Annexure P-7.
8. The first question to be decided for the decision of the present appeal is, whether opposite parties No.1 to 4 can be made liable for the act of opposite party No.5, who was admittedly appointed as agent by the District Collector under the Small Savings Scheme? As per the information obtained by the complainant himself under the Right to Information Act, 2005, and annexed with the appeal as Annexure P-7, the agency of opposite party No.5 was cancelled and the cancellation letter had been received by him on 5.12.2008 and on that very date the information was notified to the public/account holders. The said transaction is dated 5.12.2008, which was got conducted through this agent and he had ceased to be the agent on that day and, as such, opposite parties No.1 to 4 cannot be made liable for the act of misappropriation committed by him. Moreover, opposite parties No.1 to 4 are the instrumentalities of the Central Government. In Amar Deep Kaurs case (supra) like the present case, the agent who misappropriated the investors money was appointed by the authority authorized by the State Government and it was held that the Central Government was not liable for the acts of that agent. In view of the ratio of that authority also opposite parties No.1 to 4 cannot be made liable for the acts of opposite party No.5 in misappropriating the amount of the complainant, if any.
9. The District Forum in its order made reference to the instructions issued vide order No.3 of 2011 No.116-352009-SB dated 11.3.2011 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Communications and I.T. Department of Posts. As per those instructions, the SAS agents who were earlier authorized to handle cash upto Rs.50,000/- at a time, their authority was reduced to Rs.10,000/- at a time and in case if they wanted to invest more than Rs.10,000/- from such an agent he was required to give duly crossed cheque. However, the limit of issue of cash receipt books to SAS agents remained Rs.50,000/- at a time. Thus, the complainant himself violated those instructions by allegedly handing over the cash amount of Rs.70,000/- to that agent.
10. In order to appreciate the findings recorded by the District Forum regarding the interpolation of the dates in the deposit receipt, the complainant was directed to produce the original receipts dated 3.11.2006 and 5.12.2008, vide which Rs.70,000/-, each, were alleged to have been deposited by him in the PPF account. In pursuance of that direction he produced only the receipt purporting to bear the date 5.12.2008 but failed to produce the original receipt dated 3.11.2006. A perusal of that receipt shows that there is interpolation so far as the month and the year are concerned. The month has been changed to 12 and the year has been changed from 06 to 08. It appears that the complainant changed the date in the receipt which was issued to him in the year 2006. As per his averments, the amount of Rs.70,000/- was deposited on 5.12.2008 through the said agent and that the original passbook was retained by him and when he tried to find out that agent, he was not traceable. Then, how he came into the possession of the alleged receipt dated 5.12.2008? The same was supposed to be in possession of the agent. Having carefully gone through the evidence so produced before the District Forum and the findings recorded above, we have come to the conclusion that correct findings were recorded by the District Forum against the complainant and we do not find any ground to upset those findings.
11. In the result, the appeal is hereby dismissed. However, no order is made as to costs.
12. The arguments in this case were heard on 14.1.2014 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
13. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.