Anita Aggarwal vs Kharanand and Others

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.—By way of present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed an order dated 19th December 2009 of learned Additional District Judge whereby the trial court decided the preliminary issue regarding limitation and held that the suit filed by the respondents herein was not barred by limitation.

Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that the petitioner was appointed as an agent by the respondents No. 2 and 3 i.e. Chief Post Master and National Saving Organization respectively. The petitioner approached different customers for sale of Kisan Vikas Patras (KVPs) on behalf of respondent No. 2 and 3. In the process, the petitioner received consideration for issuance of KVPs. She issued receipts on behalf of respondent No. 2, regarding receiving consideration. As per the terms and conditions of agency, the petitioner was supposed to deposit the amount received from different customers with respondent No. 2. The amount being received by her against receipt in fact was received on behalf of respondent No. 2 herein, who was the principal and receipts were also being issued by her on behalf of respondent No. 2.

Respondent No. 1 intended to purchase KVPs and the petitioner being the authorized agent of respondent No. 2 was contacted by respondent No. 1 and he handed over a sum of Rs. 1.90 lac against receipt executed by the petitioner on behalf of respondent No. 2. The amount was paid on 28th June, 2004. The petitioner assured respondent No. 1 that KVPs of the consideration amount shall be sent to by post to him. When respondent No. 1 did not receive KVPs, he made a complaint on 15.9.2004 to respondent No. 2 about non-receipt of KVPs. In September 2004, respondent No. 1 also lodged a police complaint against petitioner after learning from newspapers about her other frauds. The petitioner received a reply from the Post Master on 22nd July, 2005 wherein it was stated that on receipt of complaint of petitioner, the matter was being inquired and the department had constituted an inquiry committee for this purpose. It was admitted by Chief Post Master that the petitioner Smt. Anita Aggarwal and her family members were authorized agents authorized by National Saving Organization under Ministry of Finance and the authorized agents were issued receipt books provided by National Saving Organization and the receipts were given by petitioner to the investors. It was the duty of the authorized agent to deposit cash/cheque received by her in the post office giving receipt number. However, it was found that in case of respondent No. 1 (plaintiff before the trial court), the agent had given a duly signed manuscript receipt in token of receiving money and receipts of amount of Rs. 1.90 lac was acknowledged by the petitioner for purchasing KVPs but the amount received from the complainant was not deposited by the petitioner with Post Office and it appeared that she misappropriated the amount of Rs. 1.90 lac of the complainant/respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 filed a suit against the petitioner and against the National Saving Organization and the Chief Post Master on 28th February 2008.

In the written statement, the petitioner took a stand that the suit was barred by limitation. The learned ADJ framed a preliminary issue about limitation and observed that the limitation has to be counted from the date of receipt of letter from the Chief Post Master and not from the date of filing of police complaint and upheld that the suit was within the period of limitation.

It is argued by the counsel for the petitioner that as far as petitioner was concerned, the limitation would start from the date she received money and the acknowledgment relied upon by the respondent No. 1 was not an acknowledgment on behalf of the petitioner and at the most it was acknowledgment on behalf of respondent No. 2 i.e. Chief Post Master and the petitioner was not bound by this acknowledgment. The acknowledgment of principal could not be read against the agent.

There is no doubt that the period of limitation for filing the suit is three years. The limitation would start from the date of cause of action. In the present case, the respondent No. 1 paid money to the petitioner who was an agent of respondent No. 2 for purchase of KVPs. He was supposed to wait as the delivery of the KVPs was to be made by respondent No. 2 after deposit of this money with respondent No. 2. When he did not receive KVPs, he made a complaint to Chief Post Master about non receipt of KVPs. The cause of action could arise as against respondent No. 1 only when he received a definite reply on 22nd July, 2005 from Chief Post Master that the money paid by him had not been deposited with the Chief Post Master or National Saving Organization and therefore no KVPs were issued. The cause of action thus crystallized on 22nd July, 2005. The cause of action did not crystallize just by making payment of money to petitioner as the amount paid by respondent No. 1 was not a loan but it was an amount paid to the agent for depositing with the principal for issuance of KVPs to be issued in due course of time. The non-issuance of KVPs for the amount and the reasons thereon were communicated to the petitioner on 22nd July, 2005. It is then only that the respondent No. 1 could have filed a suit. The plea taken by the petitioner that since the respondent No. 1 had filed a complaint with the police, the respondent No. 1 had knowledge that the petitioner had not deposited the amount with the Post Master and the date of police complaint would be a time for start of limitation. I consider this was not correct. A complaint made on the basis of news report without having a reply to his letter from the principal, could not give rise to cause of action. It was quite possible that the agent had deposited his money with the principal. The cause of action therefore arose only when the information was received from the authentic source that is respondent No. 2 about non-deposit of money by petitioner with respondent No. 2. The newspaper reports cannot be considered as an authentic information and cannot be a starting point of limitation.

I find no merits in this petition. The petition is hereby dismissed with no orders as to costs.