LAWS(NCD)-2009-6-1

PRAMOD KUMAR MANDAL Vs. BHUNESHWAR PANDEY & ORS.

Decided On June 30, 2009
Pramod Kumar Mandal Appellant
V/S
Bhuneshwar Pandey And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent who had a savings bank account in Post Office Sadar Bazar, Jamalpur allegedly made deposit of Rs. 66,200 in his account on 10.6.1993 and corresponding entries were also made in his pass -book by the postal clerk showing balance of Rs. 67,400.90. In May 1997, respondent No. 1 allegedly deposited a sum of Rs. 10,000 for which corresponding entries were made in the pass book showing balance as Rs. 77,400. The dispute arose thereafter, when respondent No. 1 visited Post Office on 7.6.1997 for withdrawal of some amount and the Post Master refusing payment also seized pass -book, for which a receipt was issued. Since no withdrawal was permitted to him even on long waiting, the respondent No. 1 filed a consumer complaint with the District Forum.

(2.) THE petitioner resisted complaint holding that on 10.6.1993 the respondent No. 1 had deposited a sum of Rs. 200 only in his account and total balance available on that date after deposit was only Rs. 1,400.95 but by manipulation the respondent added 66 before the total amount to appear the balance as 67,400.95 and when Rs. 10,000 were deposited, the balance was shown as Rs. 77,400.95. Since postal clerk suspected foul play in the transaction, that pass -book was seized and a criminal case was lodged against the respondent No. 1. Both the District Forum and the State Commission found petitioner answerable for manipulation in the Government record and also deficient in service, directing him to pay Rs. 77,400.95 to respondent No. 1 along with interest from the date of deposit along with litigation cost of Rs. 2,000.

(3.) IT is acknowledged fact that the subscriber is the custodian of the pass -book and chances of manipulation in the entries made therein cannot possibly be ruled out but redeeming feature of the case under consideration is that even in the ledger and saving bank long book, corresponding entries as those reflected in the pass -book were made. Since no outsider is expected to have access in these two documents, which are quite basic, reflecting deposits and withdrawal of subscriber, both the Fora rightly nailed the concerned postal clerk holding guilty of negligence and deficient in service and also made him liable to pay the sum involved, to the respondent No. 1. Though a police case had been registered, the finding is yet awaited but that would not detain us long, as Consumer Fora are additional remedy providing mechanism to mitigate suffering of the consumers. Though no such pleadings appear to have been raised by the petitioner before lower Fora, it is sought to be shown before us that even during audit of the transaction of the Post Office, no such discrepancy was ever found. We for the reasons assigned herein do not appreciate the contentions raised. Having bestowed our considerations, we do not find good reason to disturb the concurrent finding of the lower Fora. The revision, accordingly, is dismissed but with no order as to cost.