Mamta and Hari Prasad, both from Bilaspur in Chhattisgarh, had purchased five National Savings Certificates (NSCs) worth Rs 31,000 from the postal department. After the NSCs matured, they approached the authorities. Sub-post master S L Rohini told them that the payment would be made through a cheque, as the redemption value exceeded Rs 20,000. So, Mamta and Hari Prasad handed over instruments to the officer.
Since they did not receive the cheque, they wrote to the postal authorities. The officers replied that the payment could be made only after receiving sanction from the chief post master general, MP. After that, there was no movement. Upset by the attitude of the authorities, the investors filed a complaint before the Shahdol District Consumers Forum against the director of postal services, the superintendent of post offices, and the sub-post master.
The department contested the complaint, alleging that the amount had already been paid to the investors way back in April 2006, for which there was any entry in the register. The postal authorities also took a stand that if there was any loss caused to the investors due to the fault of an employee, who was dismissed from service, the department was not liable.
The Forum directed the postal authorities to pay Rs 62,000 towards the maturity value of the five NSCs along with an interest of 18 per cent and litigation cost of Rs 500.
The postal department filed an appeal in the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Redressal Forum. The Forum's order was set aside and the complaint was dismissed.
The victims approached the National Commission through a revision petition. The Commission found that the postal authorities had admitted that the sub post master had committed a fraud and misappropriated Rs 50 lakh. The inquiry report revealed that the victims had not been paid the maturity amount, as the officer had embezzled it.
The Commission held that misappropriation of funds by an employee of an organisation does not absolve the legal and financial liability of the organisation. So, the acceptance of the defence of the postal authorities was an error on the part of the State Commission, and the order passed by it in appeal was set aside.
The Bench of Justice V B Gupta and Prem Narain concluded that the investors were entitled to get full maturity value along with interest. It modified the district Forum's order by directing the postal department to pay Rs 62,000 along with delayed payment interest as prescribed by the NSC rules and Rs 1,000 as litigation cost. The Commission asked the department to pay the amount within 30 days. Any delay would attract an interest of 12 per cent on the entire amount.
Since they did not receive the cheque, they wrote to the postal authorities. The officers replied that the payment could be made only after receiving sanction from the chief post master general, MP. After that, there was no movement. Upset by the attitude of the authorities, the investors filed a complaint before the Shahdol District Consumers Forum against the director of postal services, the superintendent of post offices, and the sub-post master.
The department contested the complaint, alleging that the amount had already been paid to the investors way back in April 2006, for which there was any entry in the register. The postal authorities also took a stand that if there was any loss caused to the investors due to the fault of an employee, who was dismissed from service, the department was not liable.
The Forum directed the postal authorities to pay Rs 62,000 towards the maturity value of the five NSCs along with an interest of 18 per cent and litigation cost of Rs 500.
The postal department filed an appeal in the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Redressal Forum. The Forum's order was set aside and the complaint was dismissed.
The victims approached the National Commission through a revision petition. The Commission found that the postal authorities had admitted that the sub post master had committed a fraud and misappropriated Rs 50 lakh. The inquiry report revealed that the victims had not been paid the maturity amount, as the officer had embezzled it.
The Commission held that misappropriation of funds by an employee of an organisation does not absolve the legal and financial liability of the organisation. So, the acceptance of the defence of the postal authorities was an error on the part of the State Commission, and the order passed by it in appeal was set aside.
The Bench of Justice V B Gupta and Prem Narain concluded that the investors were entitled to get full maturity value along with interest. It modified the district Forum's order by directing the postal department to pay Rs 62,000 along with delayed payment interest as prescribed by the NSC rules and Rs 1,000 as litigation cost. The Commission asked the department to pay the amount within 30 days. Any delay would attract an interest of 12 per cent on the entire amount.
The author is a consumer activist