Vijay Keshav Bhagwat vs Sub-Post Office Master & Ors

V.K. Jain, J

The petitioner / complainant namely Vijay Keshav Bhagwat had two MIS Accounts bearing No.53000791 and 53000792 with Sub-Post Office at Narobhaskar in District Jalaun. A sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was withdrawn from the aforesaid MIS Accounts of the complainant, the amount of withdrawal being Rs.50,000/- from each account. The case of the petitioner / complainant is that one K.G. Rajendra Singh, post office agent, who died during pendency of the consumer complaint, used to look after his work relating to MIS Accounts, but he had never authorized him to withdraw the aforesaid amounts from his MIS Accounts. This is also his case that when he visited the post office on 15.6.2011, he came to know of the aforesaid two withdrawals from his MIS Accounts. The complaints made by him having remained unaddressed, he approached the concerned District Forum b way of a consumer complaint, seeking payment of the aforesaid amount with compensation. Shri K.G. Rajendra Prasad was also impleaded as a party to the consumer complaint, but, he having died did not contest the said consumer complaint.

The respondents filed written version contesting the consumer complaint and inter-alia pleaded in their reply that no cash payment from the MIS accounts of the complainant was made by the post office. It was stated in their written version that on the basis of the withdrawal forms submitted by the complainant himself, the aforesaid amount was transferred from his MIS Accounts to his Saving Bank Account No. 552437. This is also the case of the respondents that the amount deposited in the Saving Bank Account was Rs.98,000/- since Rs.1,000/- each had been deducted from both the MIS Accounts of the complainant. According to them, an amount of Rs.98,000/- was withdrawn from the Savings Bank Account of the complainant on the same day on the basis of a withdrawal form, duly signed by him.

The District Forum, having dismissed the complainant, the petitioner / complainant approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal also having been dismissed, he is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.

It is admitted by the petitioner / complainant that the withdrawal forms, on the strength of which the accumulation in his MIS Accounts were deposited in his Saving Bank Account, bear his signatures. According to him, he used to give blank withdrawal forms-cum-payment orders to the agent, after signing the same. The complainant / appellant does not claim to be an illiterate person. He has not given a satisfactory explanation for giving blank withdrawal forms-cum-payment orders to the agent without filling the necessary details, particularly the amount sought to be withdrawn by him from the MIS Accounts. The complainant / petitioner has only himself to blame if he gave signed but blank withdrawal forms cum payment orders to the agent who misused the same by asking the post office to transfer the amount available in his MIS Accounts to his saving bank account. The petitioner / complainant has not drawn my attention to any Rule of the Post Office, prohibiting transfer of the money available in the MIS account to the saving bank account in the aforesaid manner.

It would also be important to note here that the case of the respondent is that the petitioner / complainant himself had submitted the said withdrawal forms-cum-payment orders. However, even if it is accepted that he was not in the town on 09.4.2008 when the said withdrawal forms-cum-payment orders were submitted and that the said forms were submitted to the post office by the agent, he has only himself to blame for his loss since he ought not to have given blank signed withdrawal forms-cum-payment orders to the agent. If he was seeking to withdraw a lesser amount from the MIS account, he ought to have filled that amount in words as well as in digits, in the withdrawal forms-cum-payment orders before putting his signatures on them. If he did not seek to make any withdrawal from the MIS Accounts, there could be no occasion for him to sign the blank withdrawal forms-cum-payment orders. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the post office cannot be said to be deficient in rendering services to the petitioner / complainant by transferring the amount available in his MIS Account to his saving bank account.

The case of the respondents is that after the aforesaid amount of Rs.98,000/- (Rs.49,000/- plus Rs.49,000/-) was transferred from the MIS accounts of the complainant to his saving bank account. The same were withdrawn on the same day using a withdrawal form for the purpose. The complainant / petitioner does not dispute his signature on the withdrawal form, whereby Rs.98,000/- were withdrawn from his saving bank account on 09.4.2008. He has not explained as to why he had signed the said withdrawal form if he was not seeking to withdraw any amount from his saving bank account. If the withdrawal form was signed by him for withdrawal of a lesser amount from his saving bank account, he ought to have filled up the amount of the proposed withdrawal in words as well as in digits before putting his signatures on the said withdrawal form. That having not been done, he himself was negligent in managing his affairs by relying upon the post office agent to such an extent that he gave blank withdrawal forms duly signed by him to the said agent. He can have a remedy against the agent for withdrawing and misappropriating the aforesaid amount of Rs.98,000/- from his saving bank account but the post office cannot be blamed for the said withdrawal and mis-appropriation.

This is also not his case that he had not given his passbook to the agent when he gave the blank withdrawal forms meant for making withdrawal from the saving bank account to the said agent. He did not produce this passbook before the District Forum to prove that no entry with respect to the withdrawal of Rs.98,000/- on 09.3.2008 had been made in the said passbook. If the passbook relating to saving bank account had been given by him to the agent, that would be yet another act of negligence on his part since withdrawal form coupled with the passbook would have enabled the agent to make withdrawal from the saving bank account of the complainant. If the passbook was not given by him to the agent, he ought to have produced the same to prove that no entry with respect to withdrawal of Rs.98,000/- from his saving bank account on 09.4.2008 had been made in the said passbook.

During the course of arguments, the petitioner / complainant referred to the procedure prescribed in the Rules for the closure of the saving accounts and submitted that the said procedure had not been followed. However, this is not a case of closure of the saving account. This is not the case of the respondents that they had closed the saving bank account form which Rs.98,000/- were withdrawn on 09.4.2008 on the same day. On the other hand, the withdrawal form of Rs.98,000/- would show that even after the said withdrawal there was a balance of Rs.50/- in the saving account of the complainant. Therefore, the Rules relating to closure of the saving account were not applicable in this case.

For the reasons stated hereinabove, I find no ground to interfere with the order passed by the State Commission. The revision petition is therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.