NCDRC: Postal Department Liable For Actions Of Its Authorised Agent Appointed By The National Service Scheme (NSS)

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench comprising presiding member Justice Deepa Sharma, was adjudicating a case concerning the misappropriation of funds from a recurring deposit account at the post office. The NCDRC observed that while the Postal Department may not have been directly involved in the misappropriation, it would still be held liable for the actions of its authorized agent, appointed by the National Service Scheme (NSS).Brief Facts: The case involved Colonel Suri ("Complainant") and his son, Rahul Suri, who opened a recurring deposit account in the post office. In November 2014, the complainant was notified of irregularities in the account. He contacted the relevant officer at the post office, who assured him that his account was being properly maintained. However, upon further investigation, the complainant discovered that a fake savings account had been opened in his, his son's, and his wife's names. Fifty per cent of the funds from the recurring deposit account had been diverted to this fake account and withdrawn in cash between August 22nd and August 26th, 2013. The complainant alleged that the savings account was opened using counterfeit documents and that the post office staff was involved in collusion. Additionally, the complainant claimed that his monthly instalments had not been invested since July 2014, which resulted in a penalty of Rs. 8830/- being imposed on him. He accused the post office of misappropriation and filed a complaint with the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Maharashtra ("State Commission"), seeking recovery of the misappropriated money and the unlawfully charged penalty. The State Commission ruled in favour of the complainant, holding the Postal Department and its senior officers jointly and severally liable for compensation.The Postal Department disputed the complainant's allegations and stated that they had reported the misappropriation to the Mahim Police Station. It was acknowledged that half of the deposited amount from the recurring deposit account was withdrawn, and a new savings bank account was opened based on an introduction by the agent, Umesh Doshi. The amount was credited to the savings account with documents signed by the complainant. An application for withdrawal, along with the passbook, was received by the Counter Assistant. The Postal Department further denied that the savings account was fake or opened with counterfeit documents. Moreover, it clarified that withdrawals exceeding Rs. 20,000 were made through cheques or credited to the person's savings bank account at the post office. The Postal Department also claimed that the complainant's authorized messenger, P.V. Parekh, withdrew the amount from the savings bank account with the complainant's authorization. The post office officer verified the complainant's signatures when opening the savings account. The relevant documents were in police custody, and a letter had been sent to the police requesting the documents for examination by a handwriting expert. Lastly, the Postal Department argued that it was the complainant who had entrusted his passbook to the agent, Umesh Doshi and allowed him to make withdrawals. Additionally, although allegations were made against Mr Umesh Doshi, the agent, he was not a party to the present complaint, and the post office had already requested the cancellation of his agency.The Postal Department contested the findings of the State Commission, claiming that they were erroneous, illegal, and perverse. It was submitted that the post office had not committed any irregularities or negligence in handling the complainant's accounts. Furthermore, the Postal Department asserted that the complainant blindly trusted the agent, Umesh Doshi, and allowed him to keep the passbook, and the bank diligently followed all rules and procedures in maintaining the accounts.Observations by the Commission:The NCDRC, after hearing both sides, acknowledged that the Postal Department admitted that Mr. Parekh, the complainant's authorized messenger, had withdrawn the deposited amount of Rs. 24.91 lakhs, not the complainant himself. However, there was no evidence to prove that Mr. Parekh was authorized by the complainant. The complainant had filed a police complaint alleging fraud by the post office in collusion with Mr. Umesh Doshi, the 'alleged' agent of the post office.The Postal Department denied that Mr. Umesh Doshi was their agent, claiming that he was an independent person working as an agent for the complainant. However, the NCDRC discovered that Mr. Umesh Doshi was, in fact, an authorized agent of the National Service Scheme ("NSS") working for the post office. The NCDRC based its decision on the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Pradeep Kumar vs Post Master General and Others (2022) 6 SCC 351, Civil Appeal No. 8775-8776 of 2016, which stated that the principal is responsible for the actions of their agent. It was established that the NSS had...

NCDRC: Postal Department Liable For Actions Of Its Authorised Agent Appointed By The National Service Scheme (NSS)

Smita Singh

Tags