LAWS(NCD)-1994-2-31

CHIEF POST MASTER KANPUR Vs. P K SARRAF

Decided On February 10, 1994
CHIEF POST MASTER, KANPUR Appellant
V/S
P.K. SARRAF Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - Having heard the Counsel for the Revision Petitioner and gone through the records of the case we are clearly of the opinion that the orders passed by the State Commission and the District Forum are totally illegal and without jurisdiction.

(2.) THE Revision Petitioner before us is the Chief Post Master, Kanpur. THE Respondent had deposited in the post office a certain amount of money in the National Savings Certificate account. On the said deposit becoming mature for payment, the Respondent approached the Petitioner - THE Chief Post Master, for payment of the amount due in respect of the said deposit. On looking into the matter, it was found by him that the specimen signature card relating to the particular account was missing from its records. THE Revision Petitioner thereupon requested the Respondent to furnish his specimen signature in another card and get the said specimen signature attested by one of the authorities who is competent to do so under the Rules of the Department. THE Respondent instead of complying with the said request, got the specimen signature card attested by another account holder of the National Savings Certificate which, under the Rules, is not permitted except up to a limit of. Rs.500/-. THE amount deposited by the Respondent herein was Rs. 8,000/-. Hence the Petitioner informed the Respondent that the payment could not be made unless he furnished a proper specimen signature card duly signed by him and attested by one of the authorities mentioned in Rule 36 which includes amongst others - any Member of Parliament, any Magistrate or any Member of Legislative Assembly etc. This provision regarding insistence on the proper attestation is really intended for the purpose of safeguarding the interests of depositors so that fraud may not be played by somebody who comes into illegal possession of the said certificates. THE Respondent was clearly at fault in not complying with the requirement of Rule 36 and instead going to the District Forum seeking relief. THEre was no deficiency in service, whatever, on the part of the Revision Petitioner. THE District Forum and the State Commission acted erroneously and without jurisdiction in awarding compensation of Rs. 1,000/- to the Respondent. THE Respondent was not entitled to any compensation inasmuch as there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Revision Petitioner. THE Revision Petition is allowed. THE impugned orders passed by the State Commission and the District Forum are set aside and the complaint petition is dismissed. THEre is no order as to costs. Complaint dismissed.