MADHUBALA vs STATE BANK OF INDORE

THIS is a complaint under Section 17(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the ''Act'') whereby the complainant claims interest of Rs. 7,22,387/- on the amount deposited in the Public Provident Fund Scheme, 1968 (for short the ''Scheme'') excess to the limit of Rs. 60,000/- and compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- along with costs of the proceedings.

IT is not necessary for us to reproduce the facts in details as admittedly the complainant who is an individual opened a PPF account in the year 1995 by submitting PPF Form A and deposited amount of Rs. 29,19,408/- within a period of 5 five years. The complainant alleged that if the amount was deposited in excess to Rs. 60,000/- i.e. limit of deposit of Rs. 60,000/- in an year in the PPF account, in that case it was a mistake on the part of the Bank for which complainant cannot be made to suffer as amount remained in deposit for the period 1997 to 2001 of which complainant suffered loss of interest. The complaint is resisted. IT is submitted that deposits and payment are governed in accordance with Public Provident Fund Scheme, 1968 (for short the ''Scheme'') framed by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Public Provident Fund Act, 1968 (for short the ''PPF Act''). Clause 3 of the Scheme provides the "Limit of Subscription" of any individual which are not less than Rs. 100/- and not more than Rs. 60,000/- in a year, therefore, on the amount deposited in excess to the limit by mistake, the complainant is not entitled to any interest. Learned Counsel for the complainant submitted that it is because the mistake of the Bank employees, the amount was deposited in excess and the interest was credited year to year, not for one year but for four years. If, the fact of irregular account would have been brought to the notice of the complainant, in time, she would have invested the amount in some other deposits so as to fetch interest. Thus, the Bank not only deprived her the earning of interest but also withheld and utilized the amount for a long period of four years, therefore, the Bank was not entitled to deduct the amount of interest on deposit of the amount in PPF account excess to the limit of subscription.

The submission of the learned Counsel for the complainant cannot be accepted in view of the mandate of Sections 3 and 4 of the PPF Act and Clause 3 of the Scheme which we quote : "Sections 3 and 4 3. Public Provident Fund Scheme- (1) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, frame a scheme to be called the Public Provident Fund Scheme for the establishment of a provident fund for the general public and there shall be established as soon as may be after the framing of the Scheme, a Fund in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the Scheme. (2) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Scheme may provide for all or any of the matters specified in the Schedule. (3) The Scheme shall have effect notwithstanding any thing contained in any law for the time being in force other than this Act or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. (4) The Central Government may, from time to time by notification in the Official Gazette, add to, amend or vary the Scheme. 4. Subscriptions to Fund- Any individual may, on his own behalf or on behalf of a minor of whom he is the guardian, subscribe to the Fund in such manner and subject to such maximum and minimum limits as may be specified in the Scheme. Clause 3 3. Limit of subscription-(1) Any individual may, on his own behalf or on behalf of a minor of whom he is a guardian, subscribe to the Public Provident Fund (thereafter referred to as the Fund) any amount not less than Rs. 100/- and not more than Rs. 60,000/- in an year. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-paragraph (1), an individual may also subscribe to the Fund on behalf of : (a) a Hindu undivided Family, or (b) an association of persons or a body of individuals consisting in either case, only of husband and wife governed by the system of community of property in force in the State of Goa and the Union Territories of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu, by whom, or on whose behalf money is deposited in an account and the deposit means money so deposited. Out of the income of the Hindu undivided family or an association of persons or body of individuals, as the case may be, any amount not less than Rs. 100/- and not more than Rs. 60,000/- in an year. CLARIFICATIONS (6) If contributions in excess of Rs. 60,000/- are made during an year by the subscriber, the deposits in excess of Rs. 60,000/- will be treated as irregular subscriptions and will not carry any interest nor this excess amount will be eligible for rebate under Section 88 of the Income Tax Act. This excess amount will be refunded by the Accounts Office to the subscriber without any interest."

THE question was considered by this Commission in Appeal No. 28/2000, Smt. Rakhi Bulwani v. Bhartiya State Bank, decided on 22.1.2002 wherein it has been held that Section 4 of the PPF Act and Clause 3 of the Scheme, it is evident that any individual may on his own behalf or on behalf of a minor of whom he is the guardian, subscribe to the Public Provident Fund any amount not less than Rs. 100/- and not more than Rs. 60,000/- in an year as the deposit limit of Rs. 60,000/- has been fixed by the statute, the appellants were not entitled to interest on the amounts deposited over and above Rs. 60,000/-. THErefore, even if the amounts were deposited by mistake of the agent, Bank or the depositors, the appellants are not entitled to take advantage of it. THE view of Smt. Rekha Bulwani''s case (supra) was reiterated by this Commission in Appeal No. 1574/2002, State Bank of India v. Mahendra Kumar & Anr., decided on 2.12.2002 wherein this Commission after referring the Clause 3 of the Scheme has observed in para 4 thus : "4. From a bare reading of Clause 3, it is evident that any individual may subscribe to the public provident fund any amount not less than Rs. 100/- and not more than Rs. 60,000/- in a year. If, the amount is deposited, over and above, or in excess of Rs. 60,000/-, the account would be treated as irregular and will not carry any interest nor this amount will be eligible for rebate under Section 88 of the Income-tax Act. This excess amount will be refunded by the Accounts Officer to the subscriber without any interest. That is the view of this Commission in Appeal No. 28/2000 decided on 22.1.2002, Smt. Rekha Bulwani v. Bhartiya State Bank. In the circumstances, the respondent was entitled to refund of the excess amount without any interest in view of Clause 3 of the Scheme and clarification issued by the Government of India."

Recently, the National Commission in K.M. Singh v. Senior Post-Master, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi, I (2003) CPJ 167 (NC), relating to an account of Post Office (Monthly Income Account) Rules, 1987 wherein the amount was deposited in excess to the limit provided considered the question of excess deposit from the limit provided and observed in para 6 thus : "6. We have examined the relevant provisions of the Government Savings Bank Act, 1873 and the rules framed thereunder. THEse rules are statutory and have been framed by the Central Government in the exercise of its power conferred by the Act. Singh cannot feign ignorance of these rules. In fact the number of accounts opened by him would rather show that he was quite well versed in the opening of monthly income accounts. Singh referred to the decision of this Commission in the case of Department of Post and Telegraphs v. Dr. R.C. Saxena, 1997 (1) CPR 74, wherein in somewhat similar circumstances this Commission held that Rule 4 of the Post Office Savings Bank General Rules, 1981 was made for the administrative convenience of the Department and did not bar the payment of interest on an account opened by the depositor in ignorance of the rule. We are afraid, we are unable to accept the view so expressed earlier. Perhaps in that case National Commission was guided by the facts and circumstances of that case. Here the rules were National Savings Scheme Rules, 1987 also framed by the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred on it under Section 15 of the Government Savings Bank Act, 1873. Rule 4 provided that depositor may open not more than one account under the scheme. This rule is the law and cannot be said merely administrative instructions. THE judgment in the case of Department of Posts and Telegraphs v. Dr. R.C. Saxena, does not, therefore, lay a good law. Singh then referred Rule 10 which as noted above, empowers the Central Government if it is satisfied that operation of any of the provisions of the Rules caused undue hardship to the depositor then it may by order, for reasons to be recorded in laying relaxation, requirement of that provision in a manner not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. We are afraid the Central Government should have exercised that power or not under Rule 10 is not for us to decide or comment on."

At this stage, learned Counsel for the complainant submits that for mistake of the Bank employees, the complainant should not be made to suffer, therefore, a just compensation be awarded to the complainant, as awarded in SBI v. Mahendra Kumar (supra).

TO meet the submission of the learned Counsel for the complainant, learned Counsel for the opposite party submits that the amount so deposited by the complainant in PPF account goes to Central Government for its deposit in the account of Central Government which pays the interest. The amount so deposited was not withheld or utilized by the Bank. Central Government has not been impleaded as party, hence, the complainant is not entitled to any compensation. In view of the recent decision of the National Commission in K.M. Singh''s case (supra), wherein the decision in Department of Post and Telegraphs v. Dr. R.C. Saxena, 1997 (1) CPR 74, has been held not to be laying down a good law, we are not inclined to award any compensation. In the result, complaint fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be conveyed to the parties and a copy be sent to the District Forum along with the record of the case. Complaint dismissed.