N.D. Sharma vs UNION OF INDIA

SHRI N.D. Sharma, the petitioner, who is an Advocate, and his wife, Late Smt. Narindra Sharma, had a joint account with Head Post Master, Head Post Office, Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, O.P. 2. OPs had floated Monthly Income Scheme. As per the Scheme, O.P. 2 was to pay Rs. 4,000 p.m. as interest, for the period of six years and Rs. 6,60,000 was to be paid on the date of maturity, on 11.9.2010. Moreover, bonus on the original account of both the account holders was to be paid. Unfortunately, Smt. Narindra Sharma, died on 11.3.2010. This fact was brought to the notice of the Agent, through whom the account had been opened in the presence of Mr. N. Deepak Sharma, Advocate. The complainant was advised to disclose the matter to O.P. 2. The complainant went to the Post Master, who informed him that Survivor can operate joint account in case of death of one of the joint holders.

AFTER the maturity on 17.9.2010, the complainant was paid only a sum of Rs. 5,55,750, instead of maturity amount of Rs. 6,60,000. On enquiry, it transpired that after the death of one of the joint holders, the joint account will be treated as a ''single account'', in the name of the Surviving Depositor. The plea raised by the complainant is that the deduction of Rs. 1,04,250, on the part of O.P. 2 is illegal, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs. A complaint was filed before the District Forum which allowed the complaint and the OPs were directed to pay to the complainant, Rs. 1,04,250, along with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of maturity to the complainant, till realization. Compensation and litigation costs in the sum of Rs. 1,000 each, was allowed to the complainant.

AGGRIEVED by that order, the OPs filed a First Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission accepted the appeal and dismissed the consumer complaint, filed by the complainant. Aggrieved by that order, the present revision petition has been filed.

WE have heard the Counsel for the petitioner, and have gone through his written submissions. It is alleged that the State Commission has not appreciated the facts and its order is based upon non -appreciation of the evidence placed on record by the petitioner. Again, the State Commission has wrongly interpreted the facts. It is contended that his case is supported by Ratanchand Sondhiya v. Sub -Post Master, Garkhota, 0316/2005 : III (2007) CPJ 306 (NC) : 2008 NCJ 86 (NC). It was further prayed that the complaint should be accepted with costs of Rs. 1,00,000 on account of compensation and Rs. 50,000 be awarded for dragging the petitioner to ''uncalled for litigation''. These arguments leave no impression upon us. Notification DG No. 110 -23/2001 -SAB, dated 7.1.2003, provides that, in the event of death of one of the Depositors of the joint account holders, the said joint account will be treated as ''single deposit account'' and the surviving depositor will not be entitled for further interest, immediately, after the death of one of the joint account holders. The single account will stand closed and no interest will be levied on this account. The OPs case is also supported by Rule 9(2).

THE State Commission has placed reliance on Postmaster, Dargamitta H.P.O., Nellore v. Raja Prameelamma, 1995 STPL (LE) 20881 SC and judgment of this Commission in RP No. 1020 of 2002, titled K.M. Singh v. Sr. Postmaster, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi, I (2003) CPJ 167 (NC), decided on 15.11.2002. We have gone through these authorities. These authorities neatly dovetail with the facts of this case.

THE State Commission has held: Mr. Arora, in view of the aforesaid directions had drawn our attention to the compilation or book of A.N. Dureja, Assistant Director General (Retd.), P & T Accounts and Finance Service on the Post Office Small Savings Schemes, page -159, Edition -2008, which contain important orders, viz., order -15, in Chapter -13, under Heading, Post Office (Monthly Income Account) Rules, 1987, which relates to the status of Joint MIS account on the death of note of the depositors which had been dealt herein above and he had also drawn our attention to the Post Office Savings Bank Manual, Volume -I, issued under the Authority of Director General of Posts, India and Secretary to Government of India, Department of Posts. Para -168(8) of the said Manual, contained in Chapter -5, under the Heading, "Monthly Income Account Scheme, 1987", salient features thereof is at page 214 of the said Manual, which may kindly be perused from pages 18 to 28 of the appeal file. They are on the point that in case of death of one of the joint account holders, MIS account is to be treated as ''single account'' and no interest is to be paid on the said amount after the death of joint account holder. The State Commission, also placed reliance on Rule 168(8) contained in Chapter 5, under the Heading, "Monthly Income Account Scheme, 1987". Moreover, the complainant has failed to prove the fact that he had informed the O.P. 2 that his wife had expired. Mere affidavits filed during the pendency of the case, carry exiguous value. The complainant is an educated person, who is an Advocate and well versed in legal complexities. He should be aware of what is the difference between the oral evidence and documentary evidence. It is rudimentary principle of jurisprudence that documentary evidence will always get preponderance over the oral evidence because this is well known maxim of law, that "men may tell lies, but the documents cannot". The perfect proof is, giving the information, in writing. The name of the Agent of the Post Office was also not disclosed. His affidavit also did not see the light of the day. The name of the Post Master was also withheld. We see no merit in the revision petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.