MEENA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the above revision petitions involve identical question of law and are based on similar facts. Hence they are being disposed of by this common order. For the sake of reference of events, the leading case is Revision Petition No. 1674 of 2012.

(2.) This revision petition has been filed by Smt. Meena wife of Shri Nar Sing R/o Sangrur challenging the order dated 11.1.2012 passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh whereby the State Commission dismissed the M.A. No.3239 of 2011 filed by the petitioner in F.A. No.1908 of 2011 for condonation of delay and consequently dismissed her First Appeal as well. The petitioner who is the original complainant had filed the first appeal challenging the order dated 22.12.2005 passed by the District Forum, Sangrur in complaint No.425 by which the District Forum, without expressing any opinion on the points raised in the complaint, dismissed the complaint leaving it open to the complainant/petitioner to seek appropriate remedy before the Civil Court or any other tribunal/authority, if so advised.

(3.) Briefly stated, the facts which are relevant for disposal of this case are that the petitioner/complainant had opened a TD account in the New Grain Market Post Office, Sangrur (OP/Respondent No.3) for which sums of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.35,000/- were collected from her by OP No.5/ Respondent No.5 Shri Akhil Gupta, Post Office Agent by way of initial deposits in these 2 TD accounts. Necessary entries of these deposits were made in the passbooks issued by OP Nos.3 & 4. Lottery coupons as permissible on these deposits were issued by OP No.6. Complainant's deposits in these accounts were verified and on that basis, OP No.6 had prepared the case for agents' commission payable to OP No.5. Later on, OP No.3 informed the complainant that OP No.5 (Post Office Agent) had not deposited the entire amounts of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.35,000/- in her TD accounts. It is the case of the complainant that since the deposits had been made through the authorized agent of the OP department and entries of the deposits had been verified by the post office, the OP is estopped from taking the plea of non-deposit of the full amounts in the post office by OP No.3 and the OPs are bound to pay the total amounts of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.35,000/- along with permissible interest. Since she was denied her claim by the OPs, alleging it to be a deficiency in service on their part, the petitioner filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum against the OPs.