HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY & HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU W.P NOs.5292 of 2008, 5293 of 2008, 5294 of 2008 & 5295 of 2008 DATE:11.11.2009 WRIT PETITION NO.5292 OF 2008 Between: Union of India, rep. By the Superintendent of Post Offices, Adilabad and 2 others …… Petitioners And: Jadi Powlu and 5 others …..Respondents. WRIT PETITION NO.5293 OF 2008 Between: Union of India, rep. By the Superintendent of Post Offices, Adilabad and another. …… Petitioners And: Nagisetty Srinivas and 5 others. …..Respondents. WRIT PETITION NO.5294 OF 2008 Between: Union of India, rep. By the Superintendent of Post Offices, Adilabad and another. …… Petitioners And: Bonagani Anjanna Goud and 5 others. …..Respondents. WRIT PETITION NO.5295 OF 2008 Between: Union of India, rep. By the Superintendent of Post Offices, Adilabad and another. …… Petitioners And: N. Uma Devi and 4 others. …..Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY & HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU W.P NOs.5292 of 2008, 5293 of 2008, 5294 of 2008 & 5295 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Samudrala Govinda Rajulu) The petitioners seek CERTIORARI in respect of the orders dated 12.10.2007 in F.A.Nos.1800 of 2005, 1767 of 2005, 1771 of 2005 and 1772 of 2005 of the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad which were passed against the orders in C.D.Nos.35 of 2005, 52 of 2005, 56 of 2005 and 57 of 2005 by the District Forum, Adilabad respectively. The 1st respondent in all the writ petitions filed the respective complaints before District Forum claiming matured amounts payable to them in their respective recurring deposit accounts lying with Luxettipet Post office of Adilabad District. There is no dispute that the complainants who are the 1st respondents herein are account holders and deposited monthly instalments in their respective recurring deposit accounts and those accounts became matured for payment. The payments of monthly instalments were made by the respective complainants in the post office through Postal agents by names Chetla Satish and his mother Chetla Ganga Bhavani who were appointed as such by the District Collector, Adilabad. As per entries in the respective pass books of the account holders, all the payments were duly entered by the post office. When the complainants approached the post office for obtaining payment of their matured amounts in their respective accounts, the postal authorities informed them that the matured amounts were withdrawn by them through their agents by presenting the respective withdrawal forms attested by those agents. According to the complainants, none of them received any payments through their agents and their signatures were forged and the amounts were fraudulently withdrawn and misappropriated. Having failed in their attempts before the District Collector and the postal department, the complainants approached the District Forum, Adilabad for necessary reliefs. The agents viz., Chetla Satish and Chetla Ganga Bhavani remained exparte before the District Forum, Adilabad and did not file any counter. The postal authorities filed counter putting forward the contention of discharge as per withdrawal forms attested by the postal agents and also contended that the District Collector is the authority who should make the payments if necessary. After due enquiry and after receiving of affidavits and marking documents of all the parties, the District Forum, Adilabad passed orders directing all the opposite parties including the postal department, the postal agents and the District Collector to pay the respective matured Recurring Deposit account amounts together with interest, compensation of Rs.2,000/- and costs apart from reimbursement of court fee. As against the said order, the petitioners from postal department filed respective appeals before the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad/5th respondent. The 5th respondent by the impugned order dated 12.10.2007 negatived contention of the postal department with regard to payment of respective matured recurring deposit accounts to the complainants, but partly allowed the appeals setting aside the orders relating to a granting of compensation because interest was awarded to the complainants on the matured value of the recurring deposit accounts. Questioning the same, the petitioners filed these writ petitions without availing remedy of revision before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi. There is no dispute that the postal agents viz., Chetla Satish and Chetla Ganga Bhavani played fraud on the account holders and presented withdrawal forms by forging signatures of the respective account holders and by attesting the said signatures by themselves and withdrew the matured recurring deposit account amounts from Luxettipet Post office, Adilabad. It is contended that postal agents played fraud on the depositors and the postal department withdrew the total sum of Rs.12.61 lakhs from the post office and misappropriated the same for themselves. There is also no dispute that Luxettipet Police registered a case in Crime No.6 of 2005 against the postal agents, arrested Chetla Satish, could not arrest Chetla Ganga Bhavani as she was absconding and after investigation, filed charge sheet against them in C.C.No.127 of 2007 in the Magistrate Court at Luxettipet, Adilabad District. It is contented by the petitioners’ counsel that when there are allegations of fraud, forgery, criminal misappropriation and criminal breach of trust on the part of the postal agents, the District Forum, Adilabad should not have entertained the complaints and decided the same in summary fashion under the Consumer Protection Act and that when complicated questions of fact and law are involved in a case, the proper Forum to decide such questions is the civil court and not the District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act. In this case there are absolutely no disputed questions of fact. In fact the agents did not dispute that they have withdrawn the amounts by playing fraud. When criminal case is pending against the postal agents, the criminal court will try and decide whether the agents who are accused therein forged signatures of the respective account holders, played fraud on them and misappropriated amounts obtained by them from the postal authorities. The criminal court is already dealing with the postal agents with regard to criminal liability against them. There is also no dispute that the Sub Post Master, Luxettipet Post Office made payments of matured amounts to the agents by way of cash and not by way of cheques even though matured amounts exceeded the value of Rs.20,000/- each. This is nothing but deficiency in service on the part of the postal department. Violating legal provisions and their own norms, the Sub Post Master, Luxettipet Post Office made cash payments of matured amounts to the postal agents and did not make the said payments by way of cheques issued in the names of the respective account holders. This is a gross irregularity committed by the Sub Post Master and it resulted in huge loss to the respective account holders who saved their monthly savings in recurring deposit accounts with a fond hope of getting consolidated amounts on maturity. The said irregularity is nothing but deficiency in service on the part of the Sub Post Master, Luxettipet, Adilabad District. It is not known whether the police after investigation filed charge sheet impleading the then Sub Post Master, Luxettipet, Adilabad District also as an accused person, because he made the payments in collusion with the postal agents. Unless the Sub Post Master, Luxettipet, Adilabad District had hand-in-glove with the postal agents, he would not have made cash payments of maturity amounts to the postal agents. If the Sub Post Master acted in a boanafide manner, he should have verified specimen signatures of the account holders from the specimen signature forms and should have satisfied himself about genuineness of the signatures contained in withdrawal forms. Assuming for a moment that the then Sub Post Master satisfied himself with genuineness of signatures of the respective account holders, he should have made payments by way of crossed cheques in the names of respective account holders and should have handed over those crossed cheques to the agents for making over the same to the respective account holders after obtaining due receipts from each of them. It is evident that there is gross negligence as well as collusion between the then Sub Post Master and the postal agents in swindling the matured amounts payable to the account holders. It is primary liability of the postal department to make payments of matured amounts to the respective account holders. It may be an internal arrangement between the postal department and the District Collector (Savings) with regard to the authority who should ultimately bear the loss. In so far as the complainants are concerned they have nothing to do with the internal arrangement and the relevant rules applicable between the postal department and the District Collector (Savings). That is the reason why the Forum and the State Commission passed orders against all the opposite parties jointly and severally. There is absolutely no impropriety or irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad. These writ petitions lack merits and are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly all these writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. _____________________ A.GOPAL REDDY,J. ____________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU,J. Date:11.11.2009. Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY & HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU W.P NOs.5292 of 2008, 5293 of 2008, 5294 of 2008 & 5295 of 2008 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Samudrala Govinda Rajulu) Date:11.11.2009. GK.