POST MASTER, MUKHYA POST OFFICE, SATNA vs KUSUM BAHAL

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 30.12.2002 passed in Case No. 87/2002 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Satna (for short the District Forum).2. Facts giving rise to this appeal are that the respondent and her husband opened 9 accounts in the joint name on 4.4.1998 under the Monthly Income Savings Account and deposited Rs. 3,90,000/-. The limit of joint account is Rs. 4,08,000/-. Husband of the respondent died on 29.3.1999 of which the intimation was given to the appellant/Postal Authorities. After the death of the husband of the respondent, the joint accounts became irregular and, therefore, to regularize 4 joint accounts were closed by the appellant on 9.2.2002. However, the interest on all 9 accounts was disbursed to the respondent which according to the Postal Department was not admissible. Therefore, the Postal Authorities while closing the accounts deducted the amount of Rs. 70,720/- and paid the balance amount of Rs. 1,21,280/-. Aggrieved by this action, the respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum alleging that the appellant cannot deduct the amount of interest paid in excess. The complaint filed was resisted on the ground that even if the account is opened incorrectly or in contravention of rules, the amount of the interest so paid can be recovered. The District Forum after appreciation of evidence held that as the respondent informed the appellant about the death of the joint holder well within time, therefore, it was the duty of the appellant to close the account immediately, which was not done, therefore, the Postal Authorities estopped from deducting the amount so paid. Hence, ordered the appellant to pay Rs. 70,720/- within a period of one month failing which to pay interest on the amount of Rs. 70,720/- at the rate of 9 per cent per annum.

LEARNED Counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent while opening the account gave a declaration/undertaking to abide by the rules and instructions issued from time-to-time which is binding on the respondent. The Post Office Saving Bank General Rules, 1981 (for short the POSBG Rules) framed under Section 15 of the Government Savings Banks Act, 1873 provides that an individual can open the account upto the limit of amount of Rs. 2,04,000/- while joint account can be opened upto the limit of Rs. 4,08,000/-. In case the account is opened incorrectly or in contravention of rules, the amount or the interest so paid can be recovered under Rule 18 of the POSBG Rules. It is further contended that in the application for opening of the account the respondent had agreed to abide by such rules as are made applicable by the Central Government from time-to-time. Rule 4 of the Post Office (Monthly Income Account) Rules, 1987 (for short POMIA Rules) relates to opening of account which lays down that a depositor may operate more than one account subject to the condition that deposits in all accounts taken together shall not exceed rupees two lakhs and four thousand in single account and rupees four lakhs and eight thousand in joint account. Therefore, the Postal Authorities were within right to close the account and to recover the amount of interest paid on the excess amount. Admittedly, it was a monthly income scheme account which falls within the definition of Account under Rule 2(a) of POSBG Rules and earlier the accounts were opened in the joint names. On death of the husband of the respondent, the four accounts were closed to regularize the account. The accounts in the joint name were not opened initially in contravention of Rule 4 of Rules of 1987 as the amount deposited was well within limit, but, on the death of one holder, the accounts became irregular. The intimation of death of one account holder was given immediately after death on 29.3.1999 by the respondent to the appellant, this fact has not been denied by the appellant. However, the appellant has taken a plea that as per Rule 17 of the POSBG Rules, they are entitled for recovery of the interest paid in excess.

We have gone through the record and considered the Rule 17 of the POSBG Rules which reads as under: 17. Account opened in contravention of rulesSubject to the provisions of Rule 16, where an account is found to have been opened in contravention of any relevant rule for the time being in force and applicable to the account kept in the Post Office Savings Bank, the relevant Head Savings Bank may, at any time, cause the account to be closed and the deposits made in the account refunded to the depositor without interest.

THE Rule 17 of the POSBG Rules makes clear that the respondent has not initially opened account in contravention of any Rules but it was due to death of the husband who was a joint account holder, the account became irregular after the death on 29.3.1999, therefore, Rule 17 of the POSBG Rules is not applicable in this case. From perusal of the record, we find that intimation was issued by the Postal Authorities on 3.9.2001 to the respondent stating that she should close the irregular account and get the account closed, otherwise the Postal Department unilaterally shall close the account and sent the amount by money order after deducting the commission. The respondent took no action on this intimation. It was only after receiving another intimation on 1.6.2002 from the Postal Department, the respondent approached the Post Office and deposited the pass book and closed the account. The District Forum while in appreciation of evidence has observed that the appellant has not produced any Rule stating that if amount has been paid in excess then it can recover from the consumer and, therefore, ordered for refund of the amount of interest paid on irregular accounts amounting to Rs. 70,720/- This finding is not justified and cannot be sustained because the Postal Authorities had already intimated the respondent on 3.9.2001 that the accounts have become irregular and, therefore, the amount which is in excess of the limit should be withdrawn and the pass book pertaining to these accounts should be surrendered to the Post Office. But, the respondent/complainant kept mum on this letter, therefore, in our opinion, the respondent was entitled for the interest on the total amount up to 3.9.2001 and after that interest at the rate of Post Office Saving Bank Account rate is admissible. Here mention of Rule 9(2) of POMIA Rules is necessary, which we quote :

CLOSURE of account : (1) (2) In case of death of a depositor before maturity, account may be closed and deposit refunded along with interest upto the month preceding the month in which refund is made. 8. Sub-rule (2) of the Rule 9 provides that in case of death of a depositor before maturity, account may be closed and deposit refunded along with interest upto the month preceding the month in which refund is made. This rule empowers the appellant to refund the amount with interest upto the month preceding the month of payment. Here, though the payment was made in the month of February 2002, but it was due to negligence of the respondent that in spite of intimation dated 3.9.2001 she did not turn up and took no steps to deposit the pass book and close the account. Therefore, in our opinion, the respondent/complainant is entitled for the agreed rate of interest i.e., 13% upto 3.9.2001 on the amount to be refunded after the death of the joint account holder and from 4.9.2001 the interest at the Post Office Saving Bank account rate. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the order of the District Forum shall stand modified as under: (a) The Postal Authorities shall pay interest at the rate applicable in the monthly income scheme on the amount to be refunded after the death of the joint account holder i.e., 29.3.1999 upto 3.9.2001. (b) From 4.9.2001, the interest shall be calculated and paid at the Post Office Saving Bank Account rate as per Circular No. 110-19/2001-SB, dated 5.4.2002 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi. (c) The order shall be complied with within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which the interest shall be payable at the rate of 9 per cent per annum instead of Post Office Saving Bank account rate as ordered in sub-para (b) hereinabove. (d) In the circumstances, parties to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be conveyed to the parties and a copy be sent to the District Forum along with the record of the case.

Appeal partly allowed. Appeal partly allowed.