Decided on November 27,2009

Postmaster Barsar, District Hamirpur, H P And Anr Appellant
Birbal Sharma Respondents


- (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties and with their assistance I have also examined the record of the complaint file.
(2.) FACTS by and large are admitted. Such facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are being briefly noted. Admittedly respondent Shri Birbal Sharma had opened a NSS Account No.12001 on 9.3.1990 at Gandhi Dham, Bhuj in the State of Gujarat with initial deposit of Rs.3,000/ - and he continued making deposit in it till 12.3.1992. Nominee in this account was his elder son Shri Girdhar Sharma.
(3.) HE opened another account on 25.3.1991 at the same place under NSS Account No.12570 with initial deposit of Rs. 10,000/ - and nominee in this account was his younger son Shri Satya Kam. Entries were being made by the Postal Department in the pass books of both the accounts from time to time after the deposits were being made by the respondent. After having shifted to his native place, he applied for the transfer of both the accounts to Barsar Post Office of Hamirpur District. He found that in his account No. 12570, amount of interest of Rs. 13,045/ - had been deducted by the Postal authorities and only the principal sum of Rs. 10,000/ - was shown to be in deposit right from March, 1991. In this background he approached the Postal authorities at Gandhi Dham to rectify the mistake. When needful was not done, he personally went there. There besides having contacted the Postal authorities to do the needful, he also gave in writing, but of no consequence. In reply to his letter received from the Postmaster, Bhuj on 16.9.2001, he was informed that the opening of second account under NSS was in contravention of the rules as it was impermissible. From the record it appears that respondent then approached Postmaster General, Ahmedabad. Identical reply was received from him as well. They justified the reversal of the entry of Rs.13,045/ -. Alleging these to be acts of harassment to the respondent actuated by mala fides on the part of appellants, as such complaint was filed by him. Fact remains that it is not the case of the appellants that when new account was opened, they were not either aware and/or the respondent had withheld/mis -stated any fact. It is also not the case of the appellants that the second account was fraudulently opened by him. In this behalf, it may also be appropriate to mention here that in the same branch the respondent was opening the second account. In all fairness, as well as prudent business organization, appellant/its staff was expected and should have put the respondent to notice that in case he is already having a NSS account, then the second account cannot be opened. That being the position, appellants cannot be permitted to deny the benefit of the amount which remained deposited with them since the year 1991 when second account No.12570 was opened by the respondent.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.