GANGADHAR ROUT Vs. KARTIKESAR NAYAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cuttack in Consumer Disputes Case No.216 of 1993 closing the case as prematured. The appellant is the complainant in the aforesaid case who prayed for a direction to opposite parties 1 to 4 to refund the amount deposited by the complainant together with interest thereon. The opposite parties are officers of Postal Department and the complainant is the Secretary of Ratapat Grama Panchayat who was depositing money of the Grama Panchayat in the Savings Bank Account in the local Post Office, and he was granted receipts by the Post Office showing the total deposits made by him. He had submitted the Pass Book to the Postal authorities and the same was not returned to him in spite of repeated demand. It is alleged that the Postmaster of the Post Office has misappropriated certain amount for which a criminal proceeding has been initiated against him and he was convicted by the Trial Court. Against the order of conviction he has preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court and the said appeal is pending for disposal. In the aforesaid complaint case though none of the opposite parties had appeared, the District Forum dropped the case saying that the Postmaster of the said Post Office had been convicted u/section 409 of I. P. C. against which an appeal has been preferred and is subjudice. In these circumstances, the District Forum came to a conclusion that pending the appeal preferred by the Postmaster the postal authorities should allow withdrawal of the amount deposited by the complainant in the post office. According to the District Forum the case is premature and not maintainable for consideration.

(2.) The respondents did not appear though they had been noticed in this appeal and on some previous dates some respondents did appear before the Court. After hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, we are of the view that pendency of the appeal preferred by the Postmaster, who has been convicted, has nothing to do with the claim of the complainant whether the Postmaster is guilty of criminal misappropriation of money from the Post Office is an internal matter of the post office and the Post master may be convicted or acquitted depending upon the merit of the prosecution case. Even if, he is acquitted of the charge of criminal misappropriation, the Post Office remains liable to allow with drawal of money of the depositor as the Post Office had received the same through its employee. The District Forum has wrongly assumed that the conviction or acquittal of the Postmaster has. a bearing on the facts of the proceeding. It in our opinion is not correct. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the District Forum for fresh trial and disposal of the matter. The records of the District Forum may be sent back to them forthwith. Since it is a case of 1993 the District Forum should take care to dispose of the matter as early as possible.