NRUSHINGHA CHARAN PRADHAN vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POSTAL NORTH DIVN.

THIS appeal is against the impugned order dated 9.4.1997 of the District Forum, Kendrapara dismissing the complainants'' case. 1. Complainants'' case is that complainant No. 1 Nrushingha Charan Pradhan and his son and daughter jointly opened accounts with the post offices by way of fixed deposits under a monthly income scheme on 10.9.1990 for different amounts under the respective accounts, numbering seven. They were getting the monthly interest till 9.12.1994. But suddenly postal authority stopped payment of the monthly interest on the ground that the accounts were opened in violation of the postal rules. Hence this case.

THE postal department in the written version took the stand that this scheme was effective from the date of the gazette notification dated 10.9.1987. By a subsequent amendment of the Rule 4 vide notification dated 29.4.1993, depositors were not allowed to operate more than 1 account under those rules subject to the condition that the deposit in all accounts taken together shall not exceed Rs. 2,04,000/- in case of a single account, and Rs. 4 lakh 8 thousand in case of a joint account. THE complainant Nrushingha Charan Pradhan opened several single M.I.S. accounts in his own name and joint MIS account with other depositors on various dates at different post offices and was drawing interest therefrom. It was subsequently detected by the Savings Bank Central Organisation that he had committed this irregularities by opening total 42 accounts amounting to Rs. 28,46,000/- (Rupees twenty eight lakh and forty six thousand) thereby exceeding the prescribed limit as per Annexure and receiving monthly interest therefrom. THEy annexed the details of 42 accounts. Having come to know these irregularities they issued notices to him on 13.2.1995 and subsequent dates. THE last of such register notice being 3.1.1996 with a request to close the accounts which the complainant did not do. THEy further claim that since these accounts were opened in contravention of the rules, the amount of interest paid in excess of the limit will be adjusted from the balances to be paid to the depositor at the time of closing of these accounts. The District Forum dismissed all the claim cases holding that the complainant was not entitled to the relief for the reasons that admittedly he had opened the accounts beyond the prescribed limits. The learned Counsel for the complainants has strenuously urged that this contention of the Department in such a case cannot be accepted in view of case reported in 1999 (2) OLR 562, and the decision of this Commission in the case of Rajat Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa, and thereafter in the case of Byomokesh Ghosh decided by the Bench. The learned Counsel for the postal authorities on the other hand referred to the various rules of the monthly income scheme particularly the Rules 4, 17, 18 and pointed out the irregularities committed by the complainant. With regard to the case-laws cited by the learned Counsel for the complainants, he submitted that the law in those cases are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case at hand. The rival contentions need examination.

That in the case of Rajat Kumar Rath (supra), the deposits were eight in number and admittedly exceeded the limit of Rs. 4,08,000/- (Rupees four lakh and eight thousand) applicable to a joint account and all the accounts were with the single post office. The Hon''ble High Court observed that it could not be said that the concerned authorities were not aware of the total extent of the deposit made by the depositors. It also further held that at no point of time the depositors were asked to withdraw the amount or close the account in excess of the prescribed limit. In the present case at hand, the deposits were admittedly in the name of different persons but jointly along with the complainant Nrushingha Charan Pradhan. Further they were at different post offices such as Patamundal, Aul, Batipara and, therefore, the possibility of these sub-post offices not being able to detect the irregularity cannot be ruled out. Secondly, we accept the written version of the department that in fact on detecting this irregularity they had issued notice to the complainant to close the accounts. One such notice at the earliest point of time as stated by them is dated 13.2.1995. Therefore, facts and the circumstance of the case of Rajat Kumar Rath is distinguishable from the facts of the present case. So far as the two decisions of this Commission is concerned, they were rendered on the factual situation as in the case before the High Court. Therefore, the decisions in those two cases are not applicable to the present case.

WE do not find any justifiable reason to take another view then the one taken by the District Forum. It has held that there has been violation of rules relating to the particular scheme. WE are in agreement with the judgment of the District Forum that the complainant is not entitled to any monthly interest on the whole of the amount. Monthly interest as admissible only on the amount of Rs. 4 lakh 8 thousand in case of a joint account and Rs. 2 lakh 4 thousand in case of 1 single account are payable. The complainant shall not be entitled to the interest admissible under a monthly income scheme on the rest of the amount. But he would be entitled to the interest admissible in case of a simple Savings Banks Account only till 13.2.1995, when he was asked to close down all the accounts. No interest at all is payable after that date. The appeal is dismissed with modification. No cost. Appeal dismissed.