Post Master (SB/RD) General Post Office vs Amit Rai Sharma

REVISION petition No. 360 of 2009 has been filed against the order dated 4.9.2008 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur in appeal No. 2041 of 2006. The petitioner has failed to file the copies of the complaint filed by the respondent as also the written statement filed by the petitioner, if any, before the District Forum.

THE facts of the case as gleaned from the order of the District Forum are as follows: The respondent/complainant had opened a fifteen years PPF Account No. 1109 with the petitioner/opposite party on 16.3.1991 and had been making deposits therein from time to time. According to the respondent, a sum of Rs. 1,45,906 were due and lying in deposit by 1.4.2006 when the said account had matured. When the respondent went to collect the said payment, the respondents demanded the amount shown in the pass book as deposited and interest for one year on which they told the respondent that only the amount deposited in such account could be paid to them while amount of interest shall not be paid because it was a joint account and no interest could be paid on a joint account. The petitioner had thus made payment of Rs. 86,000 only but did not pay the amount of interest. Therefore, the respondents filed the complaint against the petitioner claiming payment of Rs. 59,906 being the amount of interest and other damages/compensation.

On behalf of the petitioner, mainly it was stated in their reply that according to the Post Office Savings Rules, PPF account could not be opened in joint names. Upon finding that the PPF account had been opened against those rules, interest would not payable on such accounts and the respondents were duly intimated about the position and the respondents claimed the entire amount deposited, in cash or otherwise to send the same by money order, after closing the account and calculating the amount of interests that respondents do not fall within the purview of "Consumers", therefore also, the complaint is liable to be rejected.

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan (''the District Forum'') after hearing both the parties and also perusing the case file carefully observed as under: "There is no dispute that the respondents had opened the PPF account with the petitioner in their joint names. According to the reply filed by the petitioner, such account was irregular and since the account was opened in their joint names, therefore, in view of such claim that the said account was opened in joint names wrongly, the petitioner cannot deprive the claimants, therefore, from paying the amount of interest. In this account of the respondents, the petitioner has shown the sum of Rs. 1,35,090 being due after calculating the amount of interest till 21.3.2006 and when the time came for making payment, they have paid only the sum of Rs. 86,000 in the opening of such joint account, the petitioner had played an active part. If according to rules, such amount could not have been opened, then they should not have allowed opening of such account. Refusal to pay the amount of interest accumulating due on the plea of such account being irregular, tantamount to deficiency in service by the petitioner, therefore, the complaint merits acceptance.

While accepting the complaint filed by the respondents, the petitioner is directed to pay the amount of interest of Rs. 59,906 to the complainants within two months of this order. Upon failure to comply with this direction, simple interest shall become payable at the rate of 9% per annum on such amount with effect from 1.4.2006 till final payment. The petitioner is further directed to pay the nominal sum of Rs. 1,000 as damages/compensation to the respondent within the aforesaid period".

AGGRIEVED by the order of the District Forum, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission after hearing the arguments of the Counsel for the petitioner (none appeared on behalf of the respondents) observed that: "We are not satisfied with arguments addressed by learned Counsel in this case, there is no dispute that the account opened by respondents was opened in a transparent manner and the opposite party/petitioner/appellant had not raised any objection at the time of opening such account.

If the respondents could not have opened the disputed account under rules, it was the duty of the petitioner to refuse the opening of such account but at this stage, when the said account has fully matured, the contention of petitioner that the said account had been opened against rules, cannot be accepted because the respondent cannot be punished for any wrong done by the petitioner.

Apart from this, it is also clear that the amount deposited by the respondent with petitioner was not deposited without expecting any benefits and the petitioner has also earned certain benefits on the said amount. In such circumstances, and in view of provisions of Sections 70 and 73 of the relevant Act, the petitioner is liable to forward such benefit to the respondent also.

In view of the above circumstances, in our opinion, the learned District Forum has not committed any legal or factual irregularity by awarding the compensation amount over the amount deposited by the respondents and the same cannot be called to be arbitrary, illegal or based on conjectures and there is absolutely no basis before us to interfere with the same. Therefore, appeal filed by petitioner is liable to be rejected.

Consequently, the appeal of the petitioner is dismissed and the impugned order dated 7.9.2006 is upheld. In view of these circumstances, parties shall bear their respective costs".

Hence, the present revision petition.

THE main grounds for the revision petitioner are that: • The State Commission have wrongly upheld the order passed by the District Forum, therefore, have upheld the wrong observations of the District Forum that if such joint account could not have opened, the petitioner herein would not have opened the same and once the account is opened the petitioner herein are not justified to deny the payment of interest by saying it irregular. It is humbly submitted that the said observation of the District Forum is in contravention of the mandates of the rules, hence, the same should not have been upheld by the State Commission.

• That by rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner herein, the State Commission has also upheld the observation made by the District Forum that the petitioner herein had provided deficit service hence, they are liable to pay the interest as claimed and also the cost. The said approach of the District Forum, which was subsequently upheld by the State Commission, is arbitrary and illegal.

• That the Hon''ble State Commission, while upholding the orders passed by the District Forum has failed to appreciate that while allowing the complaint, the District Forum exceeded its jurisdiction and goes beyond the scope of the rules by granting the sum of Rs. 59,906 towards interest, ignoring the fact that a mistake can be rectified as and when the same is detected.

• The Hon''ble State Commission by the impugned order dated 4.9.2008 has also upheld the error committed by the learned District Forum in not considering the fact of the matter that if the interest is allowed in a particular case, in an irregular account, then it will encourage the wrong practice in future. Therefore, the orders passed by the District Forum and subsequently upheld by the State Commission are liable to be set aside.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Respondents were proceeded ex parte vide order dated 14.5.2010. It is an undisputed fact that the respondents had been permitted by the Post Master to open a 15 years PPF account on 16.3.199.1. On maturity when the respondents went to collect the said payment, the petitioner paid only the amount deposited i.e. Rs. 86,000 and did not pay the amount of interest i.e., Rs. 59,906 stating that the Post Office PPF account cannot be opened in a joint account.

WE have gone through the Public Provident Fund Scheme, 1968. As per clarification No. 6 which reads as under: "(6) Opening of accounts in joint names or in the name of artificial/juridical persons: According to Rule 3 of the Public Provident Fund Scheme, 1968, PPF account can be opened by an individual in his own name or on behalf of a minor of whom he is the guardian. The Ministry of Finance (DEA) has clarified that the PPF Account cannot be opened in the joint names. Further such accounts cannot be opened in the name of an artificial/juridical persons. The post masters should ensure at the time of opening a PPF account that the account is opened correctly as per Rule 3 of the PPF scheme to avoid further complications".

FROM the above it is clear that it is the Post Master who has to ensure that at the time opening the PPF account that it had been correctly opened as per Rule 3 of the PPF Scheme. In the instant case, the Post Master has not only allowed the respondents to open the joint account but also retained the money for 15 years. It never came to the notice of the Post Master or any senior officials or during any internal and external audit that the said joint PPF account could not have been opened as per rules. Counsel for the petitioner has provided two citations: The first case of Union of India and Another v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal, : AIR 1992 Supreme Court 96. The present case is not applicable to the case of hand.

The second citation Arulmighu Dhandayudhapaniswamy Thirukoil Palani, Tamil Nadu, through its Joint Commissioner v. The Director General, Post Offices, Department of Posts and Ors., : III (2011) CPJ 25 (SC) : 2011 (3) Civil Court Cases 682 (SC), wherein it has been concluded that failure to pay interest cannot be construed as a case of deficiency in service in terms of Section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Both the State and the National Commission have concluded that the 3rd respondent was ignorant of any notification and because of this ignorance the appellant did not get any interest for the substantial amount. We agree with the factual finding arrived at by the State and the National Commission and in view of the circumstances discussed above, the respondents cannot be fastened for deficiency in service in term of law or contract and the present appeal is liable to be dismissed.

IN the present case, there is no plea by the petitioner that the Post Master was ignorant of the Ministry of Finance (DEA) clarification circulated under letter dated 15.11.1979 that PPF accounts cannot be opened in joint names.

HERE we would like to draw attention to paragraphs 10 and 11 of the Apex Court in the case of Arulmighu Dhandayudhapaniswamy Thirukoil Palani, Tamil Nadu, through its Joint Commissioner v. The Director General, Post Offices, Department of Posts and Ors., : 2011 (3) Civil Court Cases 682 (SC), which reads as under: "10. Before parting with this appeal, we intend to make the following suggestions to the post offices dealing with various accounts of deposits:

(i) Whether it is metropolitan or rural area person dealing with public money or those who are in -charge of accepting deposits to be conversant with all the details relating to types of deposits, period, rate of interest, eligibility criteria, etc., for availing benefits under different scheme;

(ii) It is desirable to exhibit all these details in vernacular language in a conspicuous place to facilitate the persons who intend to invest/deposit money;

(iii) That if the Central Government issues any notification/instructions regarding change in the interest rate or any other aspect with regard to deposits, the decision taken shall be immediately passed on to all the authorities concerned by using latest technology methods, i.e., by fax, e -mail or any other form of communication so that they are kept updated of the latest developments;

(iv) If there is any change in different types of schemes, it must be brought to the notice of the subordinate staff of the post offices dealing with deposits in order to ensure that correct procedures are followed and correct information is given to the public.

(11) We are constrained to make these observations since in the case on hand because of lack of knowledge on the part of the Post Master who accepted the deposit and the appellant, one of the ancient temples in Tamil Nadu lost a substantial amount towards interest".

In the circumstances, we find that the order of the State Commission cannot be termed as illegal or with any jurisdictional error warranting our interference under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and hence, the revision petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs. 5,000.

PETITIONER is directed to deposit the cost of Rs. 5,000 by way of demand draft in the name of Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission within four weeks from the date of pronouncement of order. Further, we would like that the petitioner should file an affidavit within three months with reference to the suggestions made by the Supreme Court in the instant case and action taken by the Department in this regard. We find that still a number of cases come before us of similar nature where consumers are denied interest on the grounds that account were opened in contravention to rules. The failure of Post Masters to properly scrutinise the application forms and assess the eligibility of applicants before permitting them to open the account and thereafter retain the money for the full term or a number of years and thereafter denying interest on the grounds that it was not permitted under the rules. The petitioner should have a system in place to review such cases from time to time that even if any account has been opened against the rules, immediate notice is sent to the account holder and the amounts deposited in the said accounts are returned to the account holders as early as possible. List for compliance 13th December, 2013.