MUKHYA DAK GHAR vs A S DESAI

THIS appeal is by the appellant/opposite party (for short, "op") challenging the Order dated 13. 4. 2007 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Bangalore Urban II Additional, in Complaint No. 2829/2006, by which the District Forum has allowed the complaint of the respondent/complainant with a direction to the OP to pay interest on the amount Rs. 2,00,000 deposited by the complainant at the rate prevailing in the Post Office in respect of S. B. Account from 30. 11. 2004, i. e. , the date on which the cheque was encashed, till the date of closure of the account.

THE case of the OP is that the complainant was not entitled to deposit the amount as per the Senior Citizens Savings Scheme (Amendment) Rules, 2004 (for short, the "rules") and, therefore, the District Forum is not right in directing payment of interest at stated above. The complainant had issued a cheque dated 25. 11. 2004 to the OP for Rs. 2,00,000 to deposit the amount in the OP Post Office in a "senior Citizen Scheme". The said cheque was got encashed by the OP on 30. 11. 2004. This fact is not disputed. The learned Counsel appearing for the OP submitted that as per the Rules, the Complainant was not entitled to deposit the amount under the Scheme.

The proviso to Rule 2 (d) (ii) of the Rules reads thus: "provided that the persons who have retired at any time before the commencement of these Rules and attained the age of 55 years or more on the date of opening of an account under these rules, shall also be eligible to subscribe under the scheme within a period of one month of the date of the notification, subject to the fulfilment of other specified conditions. "

The said Amendment came into force with effect from 27. 10. 2004. Sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 5 of the Rules read thus: " (2) Where a deposit is made by cheque or demand draft, the date of deposit under these rules shall be the date of encashment of the cheque or demand draft. " " (3) Where a deposit is made by means of an outstation cheque or demand draft, collection charges at the prescribed rate shall be payable along with the deposit and the date of realization of the cheque or demand draft shall be the date of deposit. "

Relying on the said sub-rules, the learned Counsel for the OP submitted that though the complainant was entitled to deposit the amount under the Scheme, he could only deposit on or before 26. 11. 2004 as per the proviso to Rule 2 (d) referred to above. In the instant case, admittedly, the cheque issued by the complainant is dated 25. 11. 2004, i. e. , prior to the coming into force of the Amended Rules. But for some or the other reason the cheque given by the complainant was got encashed on 30. 11. 2004. If the complainant was not entitled to deposit any amount under the Scheme, the OP ought to have returned the cheque to the complainant. But, in the instant case, the OP has not returned the cheque to the complainant with an intimation nor refunded the amount to the complainant immediately after the cheque was encashed. From the proceedings it is seen that the OP had written a letter dated 27. 7. 2006 to the complainant intimating him that he was not entitled to deposit the amount and, accordingly, the deposit made under the Scheme is cancelled. If the case of the OP is that the complainant was not entitled to deposit the amount under the Scheme, since the deposit was made beyond the date of coming into force of the Amended Rules as per the proviso to Rule 2 (d), the OP could have taken immediate steps either to return the cheque or to refund the amount deposited by the complainant. In the instant case, no such step was taken by the OP. Therefore, it is too late in the day for the OP to contend that the complainant was not entitled to deposit the amount and, consequently, he is not entitled for payment of interest.

IF the OP had returned the cheque or refunded the amount immediately to the Complainant, the Complainant would have deposited the amount in a Fixed Deposit or invested in any business and he would have earned more interest or profit than the interest that is prescribed for S. B. Account. In the instant case, there is an unreasonable delay on the part of the OP in cancelling the Deposit and this delay has made the Complainant to suffer loss. Therefore, in our view, the District Forum is right in directing the OP to pay interest on the amount deposited by the Complainant at the rate prevailing in the Post Office for S. B. Account from the date of the deposit till the closure of the Account. In the result, we pass the following Order: (1) The appeal is dismissed. (2) The OP has deposited a sum of Rs. 6,042 in this appeal before this Commission. If the complainant files a memo for payment, Office is directed to pay the same.

Appeal dismissed.