PRABHAKAR NARHAR AKLUJKAR Vs. POST MASTER GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 27.07.2012 of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Mumbai ('the State Commission') in First Appeal no. 196 of 2012.

(2.) The facts of the case as per the petitioner/ complainant are that the petitioner had opened a recurring deposit with the respondent no.3/ OP no. 3 post office on 24.01.2005 and was to pay Rs.5000/- per month. He alleged that he had deposited Rs.5000/- per month regularly in the post office till the end of 10.12.2009 through respondent no. 4/ OP no. 4, who was the agent of Mahila Pradhan Shetriya Bhachat Yojana. Entries were made by the agent along with the signature of respondent no. 4 in the card no. IEF 0082257. On maturity the petitioner demanded the amount of the said deposited amount, however, the same was not paid to him. He then filed a complaint with the following prayer:

(3.) The respondent nos. 1 to 3/ OP nos. 1 to 3 in their reply have stated that the petitioner had paid the amount of recurring deposit to the agent, i.e., respondent no. 4 who had misappropriated the said amount. The agency of the agent was terminated by the Collector, Solapur. It was further mentioned that for the period of 19 months the amount of Rs. 95,000/- was not deposited in the petitioner's account. In fact during the period 2004 to 2009 the agent did not deposit the amount collected from the investors. The agent however made entries in the pass book and put the postal stamp in the pass book to show that the amount had been deposited with the post office. The said agent misappropriated an amount of Rs.19,67,790/- from 472 investors. A complaint had been registered with Sadar Bazar Police Station, Solapur vide CR No. 352 of 2010 and investigation was in progress. It was further averred that the post office cannot be held responsible for the act of the agent. The respondent no. 4 was not an agent or representative of the post office. The petitioner had not deposited 19 instalments due to which the maturity amount could not be paid to the petitioner, hence, prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.