POST MASTER GENERAL vs S.Jayaraman

THE opposite party Post Master General, Southern Region, Madras against whom an award has been passed by the District Forum is the appellant.

29 MEMBERS of the Institute of Polytechnic Employees Association have filed the complaint/represented by the President of the Association. The complainants purchased 5th issue of National Savings Certificate for the period from 1978 to 1980 from out of their Provident Fund Account. At the time of maturity the Postal Authorities stated that the National Savings Certificate 5th issue were wrongly issued to the MEMBERS of the Association as there was a prohibition for purchasing 5th issue from out of the Provident Fund Account. Therefore, the purchasers agreed to convert the 5th issue of National Savings Certificates into 2nd issue of National Savings Certificates with a stipulation that if the 5th issue would be held to be in order the purchasers would be at liberty to claim their rights as applicable to 5th issue. Accordingly they have been paid whatever amount due to them under the 2nd issue. While so, the High Court of Madras in Writ Petition No. 16061/89 held on 27.9.90 that the 5th issue of National Savings Certificates purchased from out of Provident Fund Account was not irregular and it was in order and therefore the higher interest payable on the 5th issue shall be paid to the purchaser. The Postal Authorities have after some delay paid the difference of the maturity amount i.e., the higher maturity amount due under the 5th issue and the lesser maturity amount payable under the 2nd issue. But they refused to pay the subsequent interest on this difference as claimed by the complainant/purchaser. According to the complainant this refusal of the Postal Authorities amounts to deficiency in service. On these grounds the complaint has been filed claiming the subsequent interest payable for each of the 28 complainants, one complainant having died during the course of .the proceedings. The opposite parties contended interalia that the complainants have received the difference in the maturity amounts without any objection or reservation and therefore they are not entitled to claim any further interest on the difference in the amount.

The District Forum held that because of the fault of the opposite party the complainants were made to receive the amount payable under the second issue and only after the order of the High Court they paid the amount payable on the 5th issue and this amounts to deficiency in service on their part, and the difference in the amount having been paid late, for the period of delay the complainants are entitled to interest as claimed by them. On this finding the District Forum passed an award directing the opposite parties to pay the interest as claimed by the complainants along with the compensation of Rs. 500/- to each of the 28 members and total costs of Rs. 1,000/- to the complainants.

IT is against this order the opposite party has come up with this appeal. The learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party/appellants contends that even if the case of the complainant that they were entitled to amount payable under the 5th issue and payment by the opposite party on the 2nd issue was not proper, subsequently the opposite party have paid the amount on the 5th issue itself as on the maturity date and that amount has been received by the complainants without any demur, and therefore they cannot now subsequently claim for interest on the difference in the amount. From the facts stated above, especially the fact that the complainants themselves have ungrudgingly first received the amount due under the second issue, it would appear that it was under good faith that the complainants were as per rule entitled to only second issue, the amounts under the second issue have been paid by the opposite party. In this connection, the learned Counsel would cite a decision of the National Commission in "Superintendent Engineer, M.E.D. Circle & Anr. v. M/s. Eastern Ore Corporation", (First Appeal No. 37/92 I (1993) CPJ 138 (NC)=1993 (1) CPR 704 wherein in almost similar circumstances though the matter related to payment of electricity charges it has been categorically held that "When an act has been done in good faith, by which some benefit was not extended to the complainant it cannot be said to be a deficiency in service and the complainant can have his remedy in Civil Court. From this principle laid down by the National Commission it would appear that since as we have stated above, it was in good faith that opposite party thought that the complainant though they had purchased the 5th issue, they were entitled to amount payable under the second issue, the complainants cannot now make a claim in a Consumer Forum, and if at all they are aggrieved they can seek the remedy in a Civil Court. Therefore the order of the District Forum cannot be held to be correct. Thus considering, we allow the appeal; set aside the order of the District Forum and dismiss the complaint. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.