A woman above 60 deposited Rs 1 lakh at Karnataka's Kodikoppa Branch Post Office to open a Senior Citizens' Savings Scheme (SCSS) account and another Rs 500 for a savings bank account on November 14, 2023. Although the Branch Postmaster gave her two cash receipts bearing his signature and seal, she did not receive the SCSS certificate or savings account passbook.
The Gadag District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed the postal authorities to refund Rs 1,00,500 with 6% annual interest from November 7, 2024, until payment. It also ordered Rs 10,000 compensation for mental agony and hardship and Rs 5,000 towards litigation costs. The opposite parties have been given eight weeks to pay.
Lalitha, wife of Rajendra Gachhinamath, told the commission that she paid Rs 1 lakh towards opening an SCSS account and Rs 500 towards opening a savings bank account at Kodikoppa Branch Post Office on November 14, 2023.
She produced two cash deposit receipts acknowledging these payments. According to her complaint, the Branch Postmaster assured her that the SCSS certificate and savings bank passbook would be issued later.
Despite repeated requests, the documents were not issued. She subsequently learnt that the Branch Postmaster had allegedly misappropriated the money and absconded.
On November 7, 2024, she submitted a written complaint to the Superintendent of Post Offices, Gadag.
The postal authorities replied on January 6, 2025, asking her to provide the prescribed SB-26(T) receipt for verification. Lalitha later issued a legal notice dated March 24, 2026, seeking redressal.
The postal department denied receiving Rs 1,00,500 as an official deposit. It argued that depositors were required to obtain an SB-26(T) receipt signed and date-stamped by the Branch Postmaster.
It said Lalitha had not produced this prescribed receipt and that the SB-103 forms relied upon by her were only application forms.
The department also pointed out that no corresponding entries were available in its records to establish the deposits. It referred to an enquiry by the Inspector of Posts, Ron Sub-Division, during which Lalitha allegedly admitted that she did not possess the SB-26(T) receipt.
The department further argued that her attempt to initiate criminal proceedings against the Branch Postmaster in his individual capacity indicated that the transaction was personal and not an official departmental transaction.
It denied deficiency in service and sought dismissal of the complaint. The Branch Postmaster did not appear or file a written version and was placed ex parte.
Lalitha submitted six documents before the commission, including the two cash receipts, her complaint to the Superintendent of Post Offices, the department's reply, postal acknowledgements and the legal notice.
The commission noted that the two receipts bore the signature and seal of the Branch Postmaster and acknowledged Rs 1 lakh and Rs 500, respectively.
It observed that although a depositor was required to obtain the prescribed receipt and complete the applicable formalities, the absence of the SB-26(T) receipt alone was not sufficient to reject her claim.
It noted that the responsibility to account for money received and issue the required documents rested with the concerned official.
The bench also referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Pradeep Kumar and Another v. Post Master General and Others, decided on February 7, 2022. The judgment recognised the Postal Department's liability for wrongful acts committed by its officials in the course of employment.
The commission applied the principle of vicarious liability, noting that the receipts carried the Branch Postmaster's seal and signature and that the department had not established that the receipts were fabricated or that the money was received in his purely personal capacity.
After examining the evidence, it concluded that Lalitha had paid Rs 1 lakh towards the fixed deposit and Rs 500 towards the savings bank account. The failure to issue the deposit documents or refund the amounts despite repeated requests amounted to deficiency in service.
In its order pronounced on October 29, 2026, the Gadag District Consumer Commission partly allowed Lalitha's complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The bench comprising President Shri A. G. Maldar and Member Dr. Manjunath M. Bammanakatti directed the opposite parties jointly and severally to:
Refund Rs 1,00,500 with 6% annual interest from November 7, 2024, until payment.
Pay Rs 10,000 towards mental agony and hardship.
Pay Rs 5,000 towards litigation costs.
The commission directed that the amounts be paid within eight weeks from the date of the order.
The total fixed relief is Rs 1,15,500, excluding interest.
