IMPORTANT POINT
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.

ORDER

Subhash Chandra, Member—This revision petition filed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the ‘Act’) assails the order of the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Kolkata, West Bengal (in short, ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No. A/1465/2014 dated 08.12.2016 arising out of order dated 17.09.2014 in complaint no. 149/2013 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Burdwan (in short, ‘District Forum’).

2. The petitioner has contended that the respondents are not account holders of the Monthly Income Scheme Accounts of the petitioner post office that they have claimed to have opened through the agency of one Ms Santoshi Routh. The petitioner contends that even though the post office has a system of canvassing for opening of such bank accounts through agents appointed by the State Government, there was no agent by the name of Smt Santoshi Routh. Therefore, the claim of the respondents before the District Forum and the State Commission of being holders of MIS Accounts with it at Burnpur Market, Burdwan was erroneous and the lower fora had failed to consider this aspect while arriving at their findings. The respondents on the other hand have submitted that they are holders of MIS accounts with the post office Burnpur Market Sub-Post Office, District Burdwan, West Bengal that was opened through Smt Santoshi Routh.

3. The District Forum dismissed the complaint under section 12 with liberty to file a fresh complaint after disposal of the criminal case, since it had concluded that MIS Accounts appeared to have been fraudulently opened for unlawful gains in collusion with Smt Santoshi Routh and Mr Soumen Routh, the alleged SAS agent.

4. The State Commission in its order dated 08.12.2016 had allowed the appeal and ordered as under:—

“The appeal be and the same is allowed on contest against the respondent but without any cost. The impugned order is set aside. The OPs are directed to refund Rs.1,50,000/- only to the complainants within a period of 45 days in default to pay interest @ 12% per annum till payment.”

5. The present revision petition impugns this order on the ground that the State Commission had erred in not appreciating that the petitioner (postal authorities) should not be held liable for refund of Rs.1,50,000/- to the respondents as the deposit had not been received for or on behalf of the respondents. It was also contended that there was no material on record to substantiate the deposit of this amount with the petitioner. It was further argued that the State Commission had erred in not appreciating that as per the respondent’s own admission, the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- had been handed over in cash to one Smt Santoshi Routh. It was also contended that since the money was handed over to a person who was not an SAS agent and there was no acknowledgment of receipt of money amounting to Rs.1,50,000/- in order to open an MIS account by the petitioner post office, there was no liability on it as it did not render any service. Accordingly, there was no deficiency in service. It is argued that the postal department cannot be held vicariously liable for the acts/ omission of a person who was not an authorized SAS agent. It is also argued that the Agents are appointed by the State Government and there is no master-servant relationship between the postal department and an SAS agent. Consequently, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for any fraudulent transaction committed by a person who was not connected to the petitioner. It is submitted that MIS account no.14602 in the name of the respondent was a fictitious account and no interest was even paid to the respondents. The alleged pass book was a fake document and should not have been considered. It is argued that the order of the District Forum dated 17.09.2014 was mechanically dismissed without any findings and reasons arrived at. It has therefore been prayed that the order of the State Commission in A/1465 of 2014 be set aside and ap