POSTMASTER MURICKASSERY Vs. REJIMOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the first opposite party in OP. No. 105/03 in the file of CDRF, Idukki and the appeal is filed challenging the order of the Forum directing the appellant to settle the account of the complainant within 15 days on payment of the deposit amount of Rs. 6,600 interest and other benefits due as per the deposit scheme and cost of Rs. 500.

(2.) THE case of the complainant is that she had opened a Recurring Deposit Account with the first opposite party. The 2nd opposite party was the then Post Master and the 3rd opposite party was the Mahila Pradhan Agent through whom the account was opened. As per the scheme the complainant has to deposit @ Rs.120 per month for a period of 5 years. But she could no deposit the entire instalments on account of financial difficulties. The last 5 months payments were not remitted. When the period was over in February 2003 she approached the 1st opposite party for closure of account and return of the amount but request was turned down.

(3.) THE 1st opposite party/appellant has contended that as per the post office records the complainant has deposited only Rs. 2,040 i.e., 17 instalments. The last instalment was on 30.11.99. Subsequently the account was closed on 1.6.2001 and the amount with interest due and default fee were paid through the 3rd opposite party, the agent who was authorized. It is contended that the allegations of fraud and malpractices alleged in the complaint cannot be decided in a summary manner and hence proceedings are not maintainable. Evidently the pass book was left with an agent which is against the instructions entered on the back of the pass book. The closure of the RD account happened on account of negligence of the complainant and hence the opposite party is not liable to compensate. There is no evidence that the opposite party has connived in the fraud perpetuated.