Consumer Commission Orders Postal Department To Pay Rs 1.15 Lakh After Postmaster Runs Away With Woman's Savings

A 60-year-old woman who deposited Rs 1 lakh at a post office for a Senior Citizens' Savings Scheme (SCSS) account was not issued the deposit certificate or savings bank passbook. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gadag, Karnataka, has directed the postal authorities to refund Rs 1,00,500 with interest and compensation.

What Happened?

According to the order, Lalitha, a resident of Naregal in Gadag district, deposited Rs 1 lakh at the Kondikoppa Branch Post Office on November 14, 2023, for an SCSS account. She also paid Rs 500 to open a savings bank account.

She received two cash receipts bearing the Branch Postmaster's seal and signature, whereas the post office did not issue the SCSS certificate or savings bank passbook despite repeated requests.

It was revealed by the complainant at a later stage that the Branch Postmaster had misappropriated the amount and fled. She went to the police officials several times and filed a complaint with the Superintendent of Post Offices, Gadag on November 7, 2024.

While in their response of January 6, 2025, the department had requested her to furnish the prescribed receipt of SB-26(T). After a legal notice issued in March 2026 without getting any relief, she went to the consumer commission.

The Postmaster of the Kondikoppa post office did not appear before the Commission and was proceeded against ex parte. The Superintendent of Post Offices argued that Lalitha had not produced the prescribed receipt and that the department's records had no entries showing the deposits. It also contended that the SB-103 forms she relied upon were only application forms, not proof of payment. The department further claimed that she had admitted during an internal enquiry that she did not possess the prescribed receipt.

What The Commission Observed

The Commission examined the two cash receipts acknowledging payments of Rs 1 lakh and Rs 500. It noted that both carried the seal and signature of the Branch Postmaster.

In the absence of the prescribed SB-26(T) receipt, the Commission observed, "In these circumstances, the mere non-production of the prescribed SB-26(T) receipt or other deposit documents cannot, by itself, be a sufficient ground to reject her claim, particularly when she relies upon receipts allegedly issued by the concerned Branch Postmaster."

It also considered the department's argument that there were no corresponding entries in its records. The Commission observed, "If an official receives money from a customer for the purpose of making a fixed deposit and opening a savings bank account but fails to account for the same in the departmental records, such failure cannot automatically be used to defeat the customer's claim."

The Commission also cited the 2022 Supreme Court judgment of Pradeep Kumar and Another vs Post Master General and Others, which observed the Postal Department's liability for wrongful acts committed by its officials during performing their duties. It depends on the principle of the Postal Department's liability for wrongful acts committed by its officials in the course of their employment.

It noted that the department had not produced sufficient evidence to discredit the receipts or establish that the money was received by the Branch Postmaster in his personal capacity.

What The Commission Ordered

The Commission concluded that the receipts established payment of Rs 1,00,500 with interest at 6 per cent per annum from November 7, 2024, until payment. Also, the failure to issue the required documents or refund the money amounted to deficiency in service.

It also awarded Rs 10,000 as compensation for mental agony and hardship and Rs 5,000 towards litigation costs. The total comes to Rs 1,15,500, excluding interest. The postal authorities have been directed to pay the amounts within eight weeks from the date of the order.