IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution: 27.07.2023 Date of Hearing: 01.12.2025 Date of Decision: 09.04.2026 FIRST APPEAL NO.- 360/2023 IN THE MATTER OF

1. DEPARTMENT OF POST, OFFICE OF SENIOR POST MASTER, INDRAPRASTHA HEAD POST OFFICE, NEW DELHI-110002.

2. CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL, DELHI CIRCLE, MEGHDOOT BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110001.

(Through: Mr. Anmol, Advocate)

…Appellants VERSUS MR. MANGE RAM, SINCE DECEASED THROUGH HIS WIFE:

MS. OM WATI, R/O C1/232, YAMUNA VIHAR, DELHI-110053.

(Through: Mr. Radhey Shyam, Advocate)

…Respondent CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE MS. BIMLA KUMARI, MEMBER (FEMALE)

Present: Mr. Anmol, Counsel for the Appellant.

Brother of the Respondent in person.

PER: HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT JUDGMENT

1. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are as under:

“The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986. 1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the he opened an account in the Indraprastha Head Post office and deposited Rs. 4,00,000/-. The said account was in his name and Shri Sunil Kumar Dixit and it was Monthly Income Scheme Account (MIS). This account was opened in the month of November 2003. The account no. was 951843 and the passbook was signed by Assistant Postmaster (SB Branch Indraprastha HPO, New Delhi. As advised he also opened a saving account no. 14595 and this was opened for crediting the monthly interest of the MIS account. Interest of Rs. 5,335/- per month was credited in the said saving account in the month of December 2003, January 2004, February 2004, March 2004 and April 2004 and thereafter no interest was credited in her saving account. The matter was reported to the Chief Postmaster Indraprastha HPO, New Delhi, Chief Postmaster General, Delhi Circle, New Delhi and also to the Secretary, Department of Posts, Sansad Marg, New Delhi. The Complainant several times visited the office of Opposite Party No. 1 for releasing the payments of the aforesaid MIS account but nothing was done. The Complainant made representation dated 28.09.2004, 18.10.2004 and 18.12.2006 to the Assistant Commissioner of Police Economic Offences Wing, New Delhi. A legal notice dated 13.10.2009 was sent to the Opposite Party under section 80 of CPC. Thereafter, the Complainant came to know that in fact the MIS account was opened in the name of Sharda Mediratta with an amount of Rs. 36,000/- on 10.12.2003 and saving account was opened in the name of some other person and not in her name. As per the case of Complainant some enquiry was also conducted by the Opposite Party The Complainant has prayed for releasing the amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- with interest. He has also claimed compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- for mental tension and agony.

Case of the Opposite Parties

2.The Opposite Parties contested the case and filed Joint written statement. It is submitted by the Opposite Parties that the complaint is not maintainable as the Complainant has concealed the material facts. It is alleged that after receiving the complaint from the Complainant an enquiry was made in the matter and it was revealed that the Complainant had given Rs. 8,00,000 to one Smt. Anita Aggarwal, SAS Agent RD 2051 for opening two MIS accounts. The SAS Agents are appointed by National Saving Institute and they work directly under the control of Finance Ministry. It is alleged that the agent did not deposit the said amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- in the post office but handed over the fake MIS passbook to the Complainant. The original passbooks are reported to be lost and the same were misused by Smt. Anita Aggarwal. The Opposite Parties have denied the averments of the Complainant and has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.”

2. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the order dated 07.03.2023, whereby it held as under:

“5. We hav