K.M. SINGH vs SR. POST MASTER, RAMESH NAGAR

THIS revision petition arises in execution prceedings for executing the order dated 18.8.2001 of the District Forum which has attained finality. To find out the truth it was repeatedly heard and adjourned.

THE facts of the case in brief are as under: Shri K.M. Singh, the complainant is the petitioner before us. He had various monthly income accounts in two different Post Offices, Rajouri Garden and Ramesh Nagar, Head Office. THEre were 16 such accounts starting from 1993 to 1998. One of such account was closed on 18.12.2000 and five in 2001. A. letter dated 16.7.1999 was written by the Post Office to Sh. Singh pointing out that two of his accounts were irregular as total share of investment exceeded Rs. 2,04,000/-. THE accounts had No. 84667 dated 3.1.98 and 82934 dated 8.9.95. THErefore, decision was taken to stop crediting interest in these accounts. Sh. Singh complained that he was never told of excess deposit or there was any limit of deposits. In any case he wanted the regularization of irregular accounts. For that he even approached the Post Office. Ultimately, complaining deficiency in service Shri Singh went to the District Forum. It was the case of the Post Office that Monthly Income Scheme is governed by Post Office (Monthly Income Account) Rules, 1987 framed by the Central Government in exercise of its power conferred under Section 15 of the Government Saving Banks Act, 1873. Rule 4 of the said Rules provided that a depositor may open more than one account subject to the condition that deposits in all accounts taken together do not exceed Rs. 2,04,000/ - which was for a single account and Rs. 4,08,000/- in joint account and from 1.2.2000 this limit was further enhanced respectively to Rs. 3.00 lakhs and Rs. 6.00 lakhs. Under Rule 17 of the Rules, decision was, therefore, taken by the Head Post Office who was competent to take such decision to cause the accounts in excess to be closed and deposits made in these accounts to be refunded to the depositor without interest. Rule 10 no doubt empowers the Central Government to relax the Rules. The Postal Athorities took up the matter at higher levels of Government hierarchy for relaxation of the rules in favour of the complainant but this was not acceded to.

The complainant had argued, that the rule was of administrative nature and meant for the administrative convenience of the Post Office and it did not bar payment of interest in case depositor opened accounts in violation thereof. He also pleaded that it was the fault of the agent and the employees of the Post Office in getting the accounts opened and not being told of the bar in opening more than prescribed accounts. The complainant also stated that he was ignorant of the nuance of the rules.

DISTRICT Forum held that it could not question the illegality or otherwise of the statutory rules. However, on the question of deficiency of service, the DISTRICT Forum held that the Post Office was deficient as the agent and employees of the Post Office did not inform the complainant of the limit imposed under the Rules. Accordingly, the DISTRICT Forum in its order dated 18.8.2001 directed the Post Office to pay interest on the amounts which exceeded the limits and to be refunded to the complainant as per the rules from the date of deposit till 16.8.2000 when Competent Authority took the final decision directing the Post Office to refund to the complainant which exceeded the prescribed limit @ 12% per annum. A sum of Rs. 2,000/- was also awarded as compensation. The complainant went in appeal to the State Commission which dismissed the same in limine. Dissatisfied with the order of the State Commission, the complainant went in revision to the National Commission. National Commission did not find any error in the order of the District Forum which was affirmed by the State Commission. Accordingly, the Revision Petition was dismissed on 15th November, 2002.

THE complainant filed an application for execution under Section 27 of C.P. Act for non Compliance of order dated 18.8.2001 in complaint Case No. 1984/2000. THE averments in the application in brief are that O.P. had brought a cheque of Rs. 4,05,550/- which he wanted to accept under protest or subject to verification of calculation. It is further stated that O.P. had deducted wrongly an amount of Rs. 60,970/- in the calculation given by O.P. and O.P. has also not given 10% bonus on the sums invested. O.P. cannot do that as the order has reached finality as it was challenged up to the National Commission. Complainant has also made submissions that the order dated 18.8.2001 by which rate of interest reduced to 12% from 13% and non-payment of 10% bonus, although O.P. was also liable for deficiency. Complainant has given the details of payment to be made by O.P. concerning the MIS accounts and interest which was allowed by this Forum. He has also prayed for a direction to O.P. to pay his claim till the date of filing of this application and has claimed exemplary damages in the shape of 20% interest, cost of execution, conveyance charges, etc. District Forum observed that complainant had deliberately not stated that he had filed appeal against the order dated 18.8.2001 before the Hon''ble State Commission and thereafter, revision before the Hon''ble National Commission. Although he had indicated that the order has seen the finality of the Hon''ble National Commission, without disclosing as to who filed the appeal and revision. The District Forum rightly held that it has no power to review its own order. The main dispute which has been raised in this execution application is that O.P. has wrongly deducted a sum of Rs. 60,970/-. In this connection, O.P. has filed calculation sheet wherefrom it was observed that O.P. had rightly calculated the amount of interest as per the direction given by the Forum in its order dated 18.8.2001 and the District Forum did not find any discrepancy in the calculation sheet given by O.P., copy of which has been admittedly received by the complainant, wherein, they have calculated the total amount payable by O.P. as Rs. 4,05,550/- and this fact was very well known to the complainant throughout. In spite of that, complainant has refused to receive the cheque.

AFTER discussing the subject in great detail, District Forum held that: "As we do not find any cogent'' evidence of mala fide on the part of the O.P. in compliance of the order which was getting delayed due to appeal and revision between the parties and due to the facts, as detailed hereinabove, we feel the interest of justice will be met by giving a direction to O.P. again after verifying its records to issue a cheque of the decretal amount which we have observed is rightly calculated by O.P. as Rs. 4,05,550/- be sent again by O.P. to the complainant. With these observations, we dispose of the applicaion of the complainant."

AGAINST this order, the complainant went in revision petition to the State Commission. The petitioner had submitted that the respondent had failed to comply with the order of the learned District Forum dated 18.8.2001 within the prescribed period and on filing application under Section 27 of the Act for the execution of the impugned order, the respondent had offered a cheque for Rs. 4,05,550/- only whereas the petitioner was entitled to a total sum of Rs. 10,08,283/- in terms of the order dated 18.8.2001 passed by the learned District Forum. Therefore, the District Forum had wrongly held that the respondents had complied with the orders of the District Forum and that the execution proceedings were liable to be consigned. State Commission after going through the calculations placed on record by both the parties as well as on consideration of facts and other material on record, came to the conclusion that there was no irregularity in the impugned order of the District Forum dated 28.3.2002 and the Revision Petition was dismissed. As against this order, the complainant filed this Revision Petition. In this case again he contended that he is entitled to Rs. 10,08,283/- as against the sum offered by the respondent namely Rs. 4,05,550/-. Further he has claimed Rs. 11 lakhs in the form of damages, interest till the respondent actually paid the dues and the cost of execution, litigation at different Fora.

This Commission observed on 27th September, 2004 that a cheque bearing No. 557281 for Rs. 4,05,550/- dated 2.9.2004 has been received by Shri K.M. Singh under the direction of the Court under protest as per order 14.7.2004. On 16.5.2005, this Court directed the respondent as follows: "Respondent to file clear detailed affidavit with regard to all the 11 accounts maintained by the complainant which were the subject matter of the previous proceedings and to what extent it was irregular on the basis of the limit prescribed under Regulation 4 of the MIS. This is required to be done because the order passed by the District Forum to that extent is not clear as it has left it to the respondent to calculate it and refund the amount with interest as directed. The affidavit should contain all details of 11 accounts opened by the complainant at the relevant time, irregularity of exceeding the limit in each account at the relevant point of time and the interest payable thereon under the scheme as well as by the order passed by the District Forum".

WHEN the matter was taken up for hearing on 27th July, 2005, learned Counsel for respondent has filed an affidavit signed by the Senior Post Master, Ramesh Nagar in compliance with the order of this Commission dated 16.5.2005, wherein all the details are submitted in response to the directions of this Commission in which it is clearly mentioned the amount due to the complainant as per order of the District Forum dated 18.8.2001, is Rs. 4,05,550/- and this has been duly paid and nothing remains to be paid. After hearing the complainant in person and also learned Counsel for the respondent at great length, we come to the conclusion that there is no error apparent in the detailed calculation sheet submitted on affidavit by the respondent. However, as the amount of Rs. 4,05,550/- directed to be paid to the complainant by the District Forum as per order dated 18.8.2001 was not received by the complainant. However, the complainant has received this amount under protest as per the order of this Commission dated 14.7.2004. Accordingly, we direct the respondent to pay 12% interest on this amount from 18.8.2001 to 14.7.2004. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost. Revision petition is disposed of accordingly. Revision Petition disposed of.