Post Master, Head Post Office, Una vs GAMBHIR SINGH

THIS revision petition has been filed against the order dated 20.11.2009 passed by the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla ( ''State Commission '' for short). By this impugned order, the State Commission partly allowed the appeal filed by the petitioners and modified the order dated 5.9.2007 of the District Forum, Una.

RESPONDENT No.1 Gambhir Singh who is the original complainant in this case started 6-year Monthly Income Scheme (MIS) by opening an account with the opposite parties who are the petitioners herein. The account was opened by issuing a cheque No. 922364 dated 6.2.2006 for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- in favour of the petitioner No.2 with an endorsement on the reverse of the cheque to open the MIS account jointly with his son Vivek Mankotia. Application for opening of this account was sent through respondent No.2 / OP No.3. Later, on 8.2.2006, the complainant/ respondent No.1 was called by OP/petitioner to make an endorsement on the reverse of the cheque for crediting the amount in the savings bank account. Even when it was done, the complainant was called yet again later for issuing a new cheque in favour of opposite party No.2, i.e., the Sub Post Master, Una for crediting the same in the savings bank account. Accordingly, the complainant issued a fresh cheque bearing No.922366 for Rs.1,50,000/- dated 8.2.2006 and it was sent to opposite party No.1 on 10.2.2006. According to the complainant, he approached opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 on 10.2.2006 and 11.2.2006 to open the desired MIS account. Even as this was going on, the M/o Finance, Government of India withdrew the 10% bonus payable on such MIS accounts w.e.f. 13.2.2006. It appears that petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 realized that in view of the discontinuance of the 10% bonus by the Govt. of India vide its notification dated 13.2.2006, it would not be correct to allow opening of the MIS account which had got delayed in spite of the receipt of the cheque and its collection through the State Bank of Patiala on 10.2.2006 from the bank account of the complainant and hence they formally opened the MIS account on 16.2.2006 through the agent, opposite party No.3. According to the complainant, his intention was to open the new MIS account of Rs.1,50,000/- for which he had given the desired cheque dated 6.2.2006 and later also made the desired endorsement as per advice of the opposite parties and the amount had also been debited to his bank account on 10.2.2006. In view of this, the notification of the Govt. of India withdrawing the 10% bonus on such MIS accounts should not be made applicable to his MIS account and hence alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, he lodged a consumer complaint with the District Forum, Una for issuing direction to the opposite parties to consider and treat his 6 years MIS account being effective from 10.2.2006 and allow bonus @ 10% on the amount of investment or in the alternative, allow a compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of loss of the incentive bonus. He also prayed for Rs.10,000/- on account of mental tension and loss of professional work with interest @ 12% p.a. and cost of litigation of Rs.5,000/-. On appraisal of the issues and the evidence adduced, the District Forum accepted the complaint and directed opposite party Nos.1, 2 and 4 / petitioners to pay sum of Rs.15,000/- treating 6 years MIS account in the name of the complainant and his son effective from 10.2.2006 with interest @ 9% p.a. w.e.f. date of filing of the complaint, i.e., 30.10.2006 till realization besides cost of litigation of Rs.1,000/-. This order of the District Forum as stated above, was modified by the State Commission vide its impugned order and the State Commission directed that the amount of bonus in the sum of Rs.15,000/- will be paid by the petitioners to respondent No.1 and his son but only on maturity.

WE have heard Mr. Vijay Arora, Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Suresh Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. The main issue which has arisen for decision in this case is as to whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, the Fora below were right in treating the MIS account of the complaint in question as having been opened before the closure of the bonus scheme w.e.f. 13.2.2006. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the documents placed on record by the petitioners fairly indicate that the MIS account in question was actually opened on 16.2.2006. In view of this, it would be against the rules to treat the MIS account of the complainant as eligible for 10% bonus since the bonus on this scheme had been stopped w.e.f. 13.2.2006 as per the notification of the Govt. of India dated 11.2.2006, a copy of which is placed on record. This being the factual position, the Fora below were not right in returning their finding in favour of the complainant and the impugned order even though it is in modification of the order of the District Forum, cannot be sustained in the eye of law because it contains direction to the petitioners to pay bonus on the MIS account of the complainant in spite of the fact that such bonus scheme was closed from 13.2.2006 onwards and the account in question was opened later on.

PER contra, the submission of learned counsel for the respondents is that it is not in dispute that the complainant gave his first cheque on 6.2.2006. Thereafter endorsement was done on reverse of it on 8.2.2006. One more cheque dated 8.2.2006 was issued on the advice of the petitioners. Petitioners have also not produced anything to deny the fact that the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- in pursuance of the cheque issued by the complainant had been actually debited from his bank account on 10.2.2006. In such a situation, the complainant had completed the action from his side regarding the opening of the MIS account and in case the petitioners failed to complete necessary documentation in this regard, it was their fault and the complainant could not be penalized for such a lapse. He further submitted that the savings bank account in the sub post office had already been opened with the endorsement of the cheque of the complainant on 10.2.2006 and since the cheque issued for collection from the State Bank of Patiala in this regard by the petitioners was towards the opening of the MIS account only, the petitioners cannot be allowed to deny the benefit of the 10% bonus by treating the opening of the MIS account as being pertaining to the period after 13.2.2006. He submitted that filling up of the form, a copy of which has been filed by the petitioners in the additional documents placed on record, is clearly an afterthought on their part since they got this form filled up to cover their own mistake which they might have realized after coming to know that the notification stopping 10% bonus had already been issued at that time by the Govt. of India and their having continued the MIS would result in payment of bonus which might be held against them. He, therefore, pleaded that the concurrent finding of the Fora below which is based on the testimony of the documentary evidence which confirms the receipt of the request of the complainant well before issuing of the Govt. of India ''s notification and also further action taken by the petitioners to collect the cheque issued by the complainant and also the amount being debited into the account of the complainant before 13.2.2006. It is true that the document filed by the petitioners shows opening of the MIS account on 16.2.2006. However, the petitioners have neither denied nor explained as to why there was delay on their part in opening the said MIS account when the cheque had actually been received by them on 8.2.2006 and the same stood collected on 10.2.2006. In this context, the following endorsement made on the reverse of the cheque on 6.2.2006 is quite important:- "For opening a MIS Joint account in the name of myself and my son Vivek Mankotia through Shri Gurbachan Lal C.A. 39 Una. Please pay to Sub Post Master, District Court Una to credit in my S.B. A/c No.539395. Signed by Gambhir Singh 8.2.2006 Please pay to PM, Una H.O. to credit 6 MIS new account Signed by Sub PM 6.2.2006 "

EVEN if some time was required by them to get confirmation from the bank or to have the form filled up which was not got done earlier by them from the complainant, the benefit of 10% bonus cannot be denied by them to the complainant and to this extent, it would be wrong to hold the MIS account in question as being ineligible for the grant of 10% bonus by making the notification of the Govt. of India issued almost simultaneously but effective from 13.2.2006 as being applicable to this case. In the circumstances, we do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the State Commission. The revision petition, therefore, stands dismissed with no order as to costs. Revision Petition dismissed.