POST OFFICES, RAIGARH DIVISION vs VIJAY KUMAR BHATTACHARYA

THIS appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the order dated 5.1.2004 in Complaint No. 10/2002 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sarguja (hereinafter called the ''Distt. Forum'' for short) directing the appellant to pay to the complainants Rs. 4,431/- with interest, as also Rs. 250/- as compensation and cost of the complaint.

UNDISPUTABLY the complainant/respondent herein opened two national saving scheme accounts under National Saving Scheme Rules, 1987 (hereinafter called as ''NSS Rules'' for short). The first account bearing No. A/E 4016 was opened by the complainant/respondent on 15.5.1989 at Sub-Post Office Bisrampur. The 2nd of such NSS account bearing No. A/E 4167 was also opened by him at the same Sub-Post Office. It is also not in dispute that the maturity amount of Rs. 20,116/- regarding account No. A/E 4016 was paid to him on 30.8.1994 while the maturity amount of Rs. 12,231/- was paid to him regarding account No. A/E 4167 on 11.1.1994. However, later on the appellants informed the complainant/respondent that under Rule 4 of the NSS Rules, 1987 only one account could be held by an account holder. Therefore, the 2nd account No. A/E 4167 opened by the complainant was against the said rules. Hence, as interest was not payable on the said 2nd account, the appellant/department directed the complainant to refund the amount of Rs. 4,431/- paid to him as interest in account No. A/E 4167. Complainant accordingly refunded the amount to the appellants on 6.9.2000. The complainant/respondent averred in the complaint that the direction to refund the above amount of Rs. 4,431/- was unwarranted. Hence he prayed that the above amount be directed to be refunded to him and compensation be also awarded.

The complaint was resisted by the opposite parties/appellants. According to them Rule 4 of the NSS Rules, 1987, does not permit opening of more than one account. Since, interest was not payable on the 2nd account No. A/E 4167, as per rules the complainant was asked to refund the amount of interest paid to him, on his 2nd account.

THE Distt. Forum in the impugned order held that the complainant/respondent was entitled to interest on the 2nd account No. A/E 4167 and accordingly directed to refund of the amount of interest recovered by the appellant from the complainant/respondent. Learned Counsel for the parties were heard and the record was perused.

AS noticed above, it is not in dispute that the complainant/respondent had opened two NSS accounts with the appellant. The dispute is regarding recovery of the amount of interest payable on the 2nd account bearing No. A/E 4167. Learned Counsel for the appellant postal department submitted that since two accounts could not be opened, the opening of the 2nd account was contrary to Rule 17 of the NSS Rules, 1987 and, therefore, no interest was payable. Hence, recovery of the interest mistakenly paid earlier to the complainant/respondent was justified. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant department. The main question that arises for consideration is: as to whether the complainant was not entitled to get interest on his 2nd account and thus appellant justifiably recovered the amount of interest paid on the second NSS account No. A/E 4167? It may be noticed that Rule 156(iv) of the NSS Rules, 1987 reads: "A depositor may open not more than one account under the scheme." It appears that there is no specific rule in the NSS Rules, 1987 as to what would be the consequence, in case a depositor opens more than one account. In the above context Rule 3 of the NSS Rules, 1987 may be usefully referred to, which is as follows: "Application of the Post Office Savings Bank General Rules, 1981 and the Post Office Savings Account Rules, 1981-The provisions of the Post Office Savings Bank General Rules, 1981 and the Post Office Savings Account Rules, 1981, so far as may be, apply in relation to matters for which no provision has been made in these rules."

IT may also be noticed that Rules 17 of the Post Office Saving Banks General Rules, 1981 provides that: "Subject 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."

In view of Rules 3 and 17 of the Post Office Savings Bank General Rules, it was contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the appellant/department was not liable to pay any interest to the complainant/respondent on his second account. As noticed earlier, NSS Rules, 1987 do not provide for any adverse consequence, in case a depositor opens more than one account in contravention of Rule 4 of the NSS Rules, 1987. Thus, under the said rules do not envisage adverse effect in case of opening of two accounts by the depositor. IT further appears that the Rules, 156(iv) of NSS Rules was only enacted for administrative convenience of the appellant/department and would thus not militate against the rights of the complainant/respondent to earn interest on the second account mistakenly opened by him.

IT is pertinent to note in the above connection that the complainant has opened second account in the same Post Office. IT does not appear that there was any declaration to be filled up by the complainant at the time of opening of the NSS account, showing that he was under an obligation to open only one account. Thus, the appellant department did not obtain any undertaking from the complainant that he had not opened any account under the said scheme earlier. IT cannot be lost sight of that the official of the Postal Department generally plead ignorance about Rules of various schemes floated by the appellant department and almost invariably do not inform about the relevant rules to the potential depositors. If the Postal Department wants to put the depositor under some disadvantage on account of opening of the second account in pursuance of the rules, it was also under an obligation to inform in advance to the depositor about the relevant rules and the disability as above. IT does not appear that the appellants have done so. Therefore, the appellants cannot take away the right of the respondent/complainant by taking shelter of Rules 3 and 156(iv) of the NSS Rules, 1987 or Rule 17 of the Post Office Savings Banks General Rules, 1981. Our view as above is fortified by the decision of the National Commission in Department of Posts and Telegraphs v. Dr. R.C. Saxena, I (1998) CPJ 107 (NC)=1997 (1) CPR 74. "Therefore, in its purpose and nature, the NSS is somewhat different from the Post Office Savings Bank Account and, therefore, to that extent is distinguishable. Moreover, the NSS Rules, 1987 having provided for the opening of only one account under this scheme, by a depositor, would have certainly provided for the non-payment of interest, etc. in case of contravention of Rule 4 in this regard, if this rule was intended to be of a mandatory character. There being no such provision in NSS Rules, 1987 it can be logically presumed that Rule 4 was only meant for the administrative convenience of the department and was not to bar the payment of interest on an account opened by the depositor in ignorance of this Rule."

Accordingly we find that the Distt. Forum has recorded a correct finding to the above effect. It calls for no interference. This appeal has no substance. It is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.