Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
Sulekha Chatterjee & Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. – Respondents
WPA 22608 of 2013
Decided On : 01-08-2023
POST OFFICE - FRAUD - LIABILITY - MANDAMUS - Petitioners invested INR 7,00,000/- in MIS Scheme and Fixed Deposit in local Burnpur Post Office through an Authorised Postal Agent, Soumen Routh. Petitioners handed over a cheque of INR 4,99,500/- for MIS Account and INR 2,00,000/- for Fixed Deposit. Petitioners started to draw monthly interest from October 2010 onwards. From July 2012, the Post office refused to give the MIS payment. Petitioners enquired about the balance of INR 2,00,000/- which was given for Fixed deposit and learnt that the passbook issued to them was not genuine. Petitioners approached the Assistant Director of Postal Services (S.B), West Bengal Circle and in response to their complaint they had been assured that the matter is being forwarded to Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Asansol Division for necessary action. Petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court praying for a writ of and/or a writ in the nature of Mandamus and a writ of certiorari upon the respondents with prayers for a writ of and/or a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to settle the claim of INR 6,99,500/-(Six lakhs ninety nine thousand and five hundred only) along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of deposit till the settlement of such claim or within such time as may be fixed by the Court.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners invested INR 7,00,000/- in MIS Scheme and Fixed Deposit in local Burnpur Post Office through an Authorised Postal Agent, Soumen Routh. Petitioners handed over a cheque of INR 4,99,500/- for MIS Account and INR 2,00,000/- for Fixed Deposit. Petitioners started to draw monthly interest from October 2010 onwards. From July 2012, the Post office refused to give the MIS payment. Petitioners enquired about the balance of INR 2,00,000/- which was given for Fixed deposit and learnt that the passbook issued to them was not genuine. Petitioners approached the Assistant Director of Postal Services (S.B), West Bengal Circle and in response to their complaint they had been assured that the matter is being forwarded to Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Asansol Division for necessary action. Petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court praying for a writ of and/or a writ in the nature of Mandamus and a writ of certiorari upon the respondents with prayers for a writ of and/or a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to settle the claim of INR 6,99,500/-(Six lakhs ninety nine thousand and five hundred only) along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of deposit till the settlement of such claim or within such time as may be fixed by the Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the respondents are liable for the actions of Sri Routh, and the concerned officials of the Burnpur Post Office. Accordingly, the Court directed the respondent no. 2 being the Chief Postmaster General to settle the claim of the petitioner to the tune of INR 6,99,500/-(Six lakhs ninety nine thousand five hundred only) along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum applicable from the date of deposit i.e. September 13, 2010 till the date of actual payment. Such payment is to be made within four weeks from the date of this order.
Issues: 1. Whether or not the respondent department can be held liable for the actions of Sri Routh or not ? 2. If answer to issue no. 1 is in affirmative, then whether or not a Writ of Mandamus can be issued in the present case directing the respondents to settle the claim of the petitioners ?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A principal cannot elude from its responsibility towards the acts committed and contracts entered into by its agents. 2. A person can file a claim against the bank (or as the case maybe, post office) for recovery of the amount lying in the bank/post office account if the said amount has been withdrawn fraudulently by a third person. The said claim cannot be dismissed by the bank/post office merely on the ground of negligence. 3. Banks and post offices can be held accountable and liable for the conduct and actions of their agents and employees. 4. Writ of Mandamus can be issued to secure the performance of a public, statutory, or legal duty in favour of anyone who has an interest in the performance of the said public, statutory, or legal duty. 5. Writ of Mandamus can be issued against a person who has failed to perform his legal duties whether such duty is in the nature of a public duty or emanates by the operation of law. Furthermore, the scope of Writ of Mandamus is wide enough and can be used to prevent the disorders emanating from a failure of justice.
Final Decision: Writ Petition is allowed. Writ of Mandamus issued.
JUDGMENT :
(Shekhar B. Saraf, J.) :
1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, Sulekha Chatterjee (hereinafter referred to as the “Petitioner No. 1”) and Smt. Payel Chaterjee (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Petitioner No. 2’) praying for writ of and/or a writ in the nature of Mandamus and a writ of certiorari upon the respondents with prayers for a writ of and/or a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to settle the claim of INR 6,99,500/-(Six lakhs ninety nine thousand and five hundred only) along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of deposit till the settlement of such claim or within such time as may be fixed by this Court.
Facts
2. I have laid down the factual matrix of the instant case below:
b. On September 2, 2003, Shaheed Ashok Kumar Chatterjee, along with three other colleagues while proceeding to the work site was severely injured as a result of an IED Blast, which was a terrorist attack. Sri Chatterjee was initially evacuated to the District Hospital, Kathua with severe injuries on the left arm, left eye, shoulder and head. Subsequently, he was then evacuated to the Government Medical College, Jammu and then to his home town at Asansol, West Bengal. Unfortunately, Shri Chatterjee succumbed to his injuries on October 2, 2003 at the Daffodil Medical Centre, Asansol at a young age of 43 years.
c. Subsequently, in the form of Compensation, Death Benefit, etc., the petitioners received certain amount of money from various Departments and the State and Central Government totalling up to INR 13,64,405/-(Thirteen lakhs sixty four thousand four hundred five only). The petitioners decided to invest some of the amount received to the tune of INR 7,00,000/-(Seven lakhs only) in the local Burnpur Post Office in MIS Scheme as well as in Fixed Deposit.
d. Accordingly, the petitioners handed over INR 7,00,000/-(Seven lakhs only) to one Mr. Soumen Routh, an Authorised Postal Agent under Burnpur Market Sub-Post office, for investing in M.I.S. and Term Deposit (T.D). The above amount included a Cheque of INR 4,99,500/-(Four lakhs ninety nine thousand five hundred only) which was paid by the petitioner vide Cheque No. 789463 for making an MIS Account in Burnpur Market Sub-Post Office and the said cheque was drawn in the name of Sri Soumen Routh and handed over to him.
e. The petitioners were then handed over a MIS Passbook depicting an Account No. being 14201 dated September 13, 2010 by Sri Soumen Routh, and the said pass book reflected a MIS investment amount of INR 4,99,500/-(Four lakhs ninety nine thousand five hundred only) and the petitioners started to draw monthly interest from the Post Office from October 20, 2010 onwards @ INR 3,330/-(Three thousand three hundred thirty only) per month for every month until June 2012. Sometime around June 2012, petitioners state that the said passbook was taken by Sri Routh on the pretext of computerizing the Account in the said Post Office and was never returned back. The said passbook was recovered subsequently from the police authorities.
f. From July 2012, the Post office refused to give the MIS payment and when the petitioners confronted the concerned authorities at the post office, they were told that the accounts were not genuine and hence no further payments can be made. The petitioners gave a letter dated September 5, 2012 to the local post office seeking refund of INR 4,99,500/-(Four lakhs ninety nine thousand five hundred only) and this communication was allegedly never responded to by the post office.
g. The petitioners then enquired about the balance of INR 2,00,000/-(Two lakhs only) which was given for Fixed deposit. They allegedly l
A principal cannot elude from its responsibility towards the acts committed and contracts entered into by its agents.
Post Office – Post office is a public office and handles public money and holds deposits of individuals in public trust in various schemes promoted by the Government to encourage small savings.
The Consumer Commission's jurisdiction is limited and matters involving substantial evidence require full trials in civil courts.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
