NCDRC holds post office accountable for ‘missing’ Rs 6 lakh cheques from 2008

The dispute dates back to December 2008 and December 2009. According to the complainants, they handed over a cheque for Rs 3 lakh to the postmaster of the Main Post Office, Godhra, Panchmahal, Gujarat, on December 17, 2008, to open a monthly income scheme (MIS) account. They also alleged that a cheque for Rs 3 lakh was given on December 4, 2009, to open a similar account. They further claimed that Rs 10.50 lakh was subsequently handed over in cash to a post office agent, but the amount was neither entered in the passbooks nor returned. The complainants sought refund of Rs 16.50 lakh, along with interest, compensation and litigation costs.

Post office blamed agent for alleged fraud

The post office denied the claim and referred to alleged fraud by its agent, R C Trivedi. It alleged that Trivedi had mishandled a large number of transactions and criminal complaints had been lodged against him. The order records that Trivedi had been appointed by the Collector, Panchmahal, Godhra. The post office argued that it could not be held liable for the alleged fraudulent transactions.

The district commission partly allowed the complaint. It found that the two Rs 3 lakh cheque deposits had been established and held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the post office because the amounts were neither invested in the complainants’ names nor returned.

However, it rejected the claim concerning the alleged Rs 10.50 lakh cash payment. The commission found that the cash transaction had not been established as negligence or deficiency on the part of the Post Office. It therefore allowed the complaint for Rs 6 lakh, along with interest, while rejecting the claim for the remaining amount.

Gujarat state commission upheld order

The complainants challenged the rejection of their claim for the remaining amount before the Gujarat State Consumer Commission. The post master and the Union of India also filed appeals challenging the entire district commission order.

The state commission heard both appeals together and dismissed them, upholding the District Commission’s order. The NCDRC noted that the state commission had recorded categorical findings on the issues, including the mode of appointment of the post office agent and the liability of the post office in such cases.

NCDRC declines to interfere

The counsel for the post office argued that no vicarious liability could be imposed on the department. The Union government also relied on the rules governing operation of postal savings accounts, arguing that the account-opening forms and entries relied upon by the complainants were absent from departmental records.

The counsel further argued that commitments allegedly made by Trivedi on stamp papers could not create liability under the rules governing small savings agents at postal saving schemes. Reference was also made to Rule 26 of the ‘Post Office Savings Bank Manual’ and the absence of endorsements on the cheques allegedly tendered.

The NCDRC, however, noted that the district commission had clearly separated the alleged cash transactions from the cheque transactions and had disbelieved the cash claim. It said the Rs 6 lakh finding was based on the cheques tendered in the name of the post master, and that the state commission had recorded a finding of fact that Rs 6 lakh had been received and deposited through cheques.

Takeaway

Consumers dealing with postal savings schemes should keep original receipts, cheques, passbooks and proof of payment, and ensure that deposits are properly reflected in their account records. In this case, the consumer fora distinguished the Rs 6 lakh cheque deposits, which were established, from the separate Rs 10.50 lakh cash claim, which was not proved as negligence or deficiency by the post office.

For consumer-related grievances, individuals may contact consumer helpline in their respective states or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.

Don’t miss out on these stories

Insurer cites policy breach to deny dacoity claim, finance firm wins Rs 44.54 lakh

Rs 25 lakh chit fund delayed 55 days, mobile shop owner wins Rs 44,500 payout

Insurer rejects claim over ‘history of high BP’, Himachal man wins Rs 2 lakh payout