High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : Prakash Pathak
Union of India - Appellant
Versus
Moti Lal - Respondent
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 551 of 2005
Decided On : 05/01/2006
commission - National Saving Schemes - Rule 19 of Chapter VI of the Post Office Small Saving Schemes Handbook - The court held that the plaintiff, being an authorized agent, was entitled to claim commission for generating collections and there was no violation of the rules to disentitle him from receiving his commission.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, an authorized agent, filed a suit for recovery of commission amount from the defendants for generating collections under National Saving Schemes. The defendants contended that the plaintiff was not entitled to commission as the investors were doing business outside the state.
Finding of the Court:
The court found in favor of the plaintiff, holding that he was entitled to claim commission for generating collections and there was no violation of the rules to disentitle him from receiving his commission.
Issues: Whether the plaintiff was entitled to claim commission for generating collections under National Saving Schemes and whether the trial Court correctly decreed the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The plaintiff, being an authorized agent, was entitled to claim commission for generating collections and there was no violation of the rules to disentitle him from receiving his commission.
Final Decision: The appeal of the appellant was dismissed by the Court.
S.P. Pathak, J.-At the request of learned Counsel for parties, the matter was heard and is being disposed of at the admission stage itself .
2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, have been referred to as the original parties.
3. Facts, in brief , giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiff , who is respondent herein, on 26.03.2004 filed a suit before the Court of District Judge, Pali for recovery of Rs.1,38,720. The case set up by the plaintiff in the suit was that he is an authorized agent of defendants since 1977 under the Standardized Agency System floated by the Union of India’s National Saving Scheme, meant for sale of Kisan Vikas Patras, NSCs, Deposits in time Deposit Accounts, Monthly Income Scheme Accounts and Senior Citizen Savings Scheme Accounts, and had deposited various sums under different schemes of the investors who are permanently residing at Pali, though carrying on their business in Maharashtra State, which totally amounted to rupees one crore one lac and for the purpose had also submitted the required Form SB-3 got filled by the investors on 23.03.2001 and thereafter on collection of the amount through cheques, accounts of investors were opened and passbooks were issued to them, however, on the said amounts deposited through him no commission was paid to him despite reminders. It was claimed that the said deposits entitled the plaintiff to a commission of rupees one lac two thousands and therefore he sent a notice to the defendants under Order 80 CPC even then the commission amount of Rs.1,38,720 was not paid to him and he was deprived its use and utilization. Interest on the said amount of commission @ 12% per annum amounting to Rs. 36,720 was also prayed for. In support of its case, the plaintiff filed his affidavit. The case was transferred for its trial and disposal to the Court of Addl. District Judge, (Fast Track), Pali.
.4. The defendants, who are appellants herein, filed their written statement on 20.05.2004 and though admitted that on collection of the amounts, accounts of investors were opened and passbooks were issued to them, however took the stand that commission on the deposits is payable only as per the terms and conditions of the agency system, which in the case of the plaintiff is Standardized Agency System and since the cheques for investment were drawn on the banks at Mumbai by the depositors’ who have migrated from Rajasthan and have received the gifts like silver and gold coins under the special encouragement scheme for them, the agent is not entitled to get any commission. In better particulars, the defendants also stated that on SB-3 Forms the agent had not mentioned his name and account number therefore also he is not entitled to receive commission on those deposits. The defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs and filed affidavit of Superintendent of Post Offices, Pali in support of their submissions.
.5. The learned Court of Addl. District Judge, on 112.2004 framed the following issues:-
.(1) Whether the plaintiff is an authorized agent of defendants for the National Saving Schemes?
.(2) Whether the plaintiff under different schemes of the defendants’ deposited Rs.1,02,00,000/-of different persons?
.(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to receive Rs.1,02,000/-as commission on the aforesaid amount?
.(4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to receive interest amount of Rs.36,720 on account of not disbursing the commission amount to him in time by the defendants?
.(5) Whether the plaintiff has not acted according to the procedure and rules and for this reason is not entitled to receive the amount of commission?
.(6) Relief ?
6. Plaintiff Motilal in oral evidence examined himself as PW 1, Suresh Nahata (PW 2) and in documentary evidence produced Exhibit 1 the licence of Standardized Agency System, Exhibit 2 the application for opening account, Exhibit 3 Pay-in slip, Exhibit 4 Format of commission receipt, Exhibit 5 to 24 receipts, Ex
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.