POSTMASTER, HEAD POST OFFICE vs SHAIL SILAR SAHEB

THESE two appeals arise out of an order passed by the District Forum, West Godavari in OP 21/95. The Appeal FA 1139/95 was preferred by the opposite parties and the Appeal No. 980/96 was preferred by the complainant questioning the order insofar as it went against him.

BRIEFLY stated, that the complainant opened Post Office Savings Bank Account No. 1275 at Kakinada on 19.10.1990 with a sum of Rs. 25,000/- in monthly Income savings account, for a duration of five years. Subsequently the complainant shifted his family from Kakinada to Tanuku and got his account transferred on 11.10.1991 to the Post Master, Head Post Office, Tanuku i.e. first opposite party. He was paid monthly interest of Rs. 250/- upto 14.10.1991 which were noted in the SB account book of the complainant. Subsequently the first opposite party stopped payment of monthly interest and the complainant was informed by the first opposite party that it received an interim injunction order in OS 284/91 on the file of Sub-Court, Kakinada not to pay the amount to the complainant. Thereupon the complainant appeared in the suit and the ex-parte injunction granted in the suit directing the complainant not to withdraw the interest amount was dissolved on 28.11.1991. Inspite of producing the copies of orders before the first opposite party, the first opposite party did not pay the interest subsequent to l4.10.1991. The complainant made a representation to the second opposite party on 20.1.1993 and also on 26.2.1993 and as there was no response he got issued a registered notice on 23.3.1993 to the opposite parties 1 and 2. To the representation dated 20.1.1993, the third opposite party sent a memo that opposite parties 1 and 2 were addressed in the matter and requested the complainant to make further correspondence with them. But the representations made by the complainant to all the opposite parties did not bear fruit. The complainant therefore filed the above complaint seeking a direction to the opposite parties to return the amount in Savings Bank account together with interest upto date and to pay the accumulated monthly interest forthwith and pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- for mental agony and suffering. The opposite party No. 2 filed a counter stating that the complainant is not a consumer. But admitted the opening of monthly income savings account by the complainant with an amount of Rs. 25,000/- deposited in the Head Post Office and transferring of the said account from Kakinada to Tanuku Head Post Office on 5.10.1991. But it is submitted that the complainant''s wife Smt. Ameena Vali Begum filed a suit against the complainant i.e. OS 284/ 91 on the file of Subordinate Judge Court, Kakinada and also filed IAs 3044/91 and 3045/ 91 against the complainant seeking an injunction against the complainant and Head Post Office, Kakinada and Union of India represented by its Secretary, Government of India, New Delhi restraining the complainant from withdrawing the amount and the second defendant i.e. second opposite party from paying the amount to the complainant. Hence the opposite parties could not decide one way or the other during the pendency of the suit and IAs referred to above in the Sub-Court, Kakinada whether the amount should be disbursed especially in view of the directions of the Sub-Court, Kakinada. It was also pleaded that the complainant is at liberty to file a petition in Sub-Court for advancing the IAs and obtaining early decision, that the complainant''s wife is a necessary party to the complaint and the complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands and that he is not entitled to claim compensation of Rs. 5,000/-

The opposite parties 1 and 3 filed a memo adopting the confer filed by the second opposite party.

NO oral evidence was adduced by both the parties. On behalf of the complainant Exs. A 1 to A 12 were marked and on behalf of the opposite parties Exs. B 1 to B 4 were marked. The District Forum held on a consideration of the evidence on record that on 10.10.1991 the wife of the complainant filed OS 284/1991 on the file of II Additional Subordinate Judge''s Court, Kakinada against the complainant who was made 1st defendant and the Post office. Head Post Office who was made second defendant and the Union of India was made third defendant claiming a sum of Rs. 71,000/- and other incidental reliefs.

THE two applications namely IAs 3044/ 91 and 3045/91 were filed for interim injunction against the first defendant in the said suit i.e. complainant in this OP for restraining him from withdrawing any amount from the monthly income savings account pending disposal of the suit. An ex-parte interim injunction was granted by the Court on 11.10.1991. But the said IA 3044/ 91 was dismissed on 28.11.1991 as evidenced by Ex. A 12 for non payment of Batta to the respondents 1 and 3 and the plaintiff therein did not take any steps to restore the said IA. So far as the IA 3045/91 is concerned which was marked as Ex. B 2 filed against the second defendant i.e. Head Post Office for restraining him from paying the amount in the monthly income savings account to the complainant, no ex-parte interim injunction was passed as evident from Ex. B 3 and the IA stood posted from 28.7.95 to 2.8.95 for enquiry. The District Forum therefore held that as the interim injunction passed against the first defendant i.e. complainant was dissolved on 28.11.1991 and as there is no interim injunction order passed by the Subordinate Judge''s Court against the second defendant i.e. Head Post Office, Kakinada re- straining him from paying the amount, there is no justification for the opposite parties for not paying the monthly interest due and payable to the complainant and hence the action of the opposite parties in not paying the monthly interest is not bona fide and hence there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. It accordingly directed the opposite parties to deposit the principle amount of Rs. 25,000/- relating to monthly income savings account bearing No. 1000324 belonging to the complainant and also the monthly instalment amounts that became due and payable in respect of the said amount with interest @ 12% p.a. from the dates on which of those monthly instalments became due till the date of deposit of those amounts to the credit of OS 284/91 on the file of II Additional Subordinate Judge''s Court, Kakinada and pay compensation of Rs. 250/ - to the complainant for mental agony and Rs. 150/- towards costs. In the Appeal FA 1139/95 preferred by the opposite parties, it is submitted that since the suit and IA 3045/91 are pending, the opposite parties bona fidely believed that the interest accrued should not be paid to the complainant. We do not see any force in the aforesaid contention. The complainant produced before the opposite parties, the copy of the order passed by the Subordinate Judge, Kakinada dismissing the said IA i.e. 3044/91 on28.11.1991 for non-payment of Batta to the defendants 1 and 3 and also copies of the docket order Ex. B 3 which disclosed that no ex-parte ad-interim injunction was passed against the opposite parties in this complaint and although urgent notice was ordered, no interim injunction was granted and the IA was posted from 28.7.95 to 2.8.96 for enquiry. Hence there is no justification for the opposite parties for not paying the amount of interest payable after the complainant produced the copies of the docket orders of the Civil Court in IA Nos. 3044/91 and 3045/91.

THE opposite parties are not prevented by mere pendency of suit or IA without there being an interim order restraining them from paying the interest due and payable to the complainant every month as admittedly the deposit is in the name of the complainant. We are therefore not satisfied that the opposite parties bona fidely believed that they need not pay the amount to the complainant. We, therefore, confirm the order of the District Forum that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.

SINCE the directions given are for refund of Rs. 25,000/- with interest and also a nominal sum of Rs. 250/- towards compensation and Rs. 150/- towards costs, we are not inclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation granted by the District Forum. In the appeal preferred by the complainant, it is submitted that the plaintiff in OS 284/91 did not get herself impleaded as party to the complaint and did not seek any relief either in the suit or in this complaint for depositing of the amount of Rs. 25,000/- with interest to the credit of the suit and when the deposit is in the name of the complainant, there is no justification for the District Forum to direct the deposit of the amount of Rs. 25,000/- with interest to the credit of OS 284/91 which is pending in the Court of II Additional Subordinate Judge, Kakinada. We see sufficient force in the aforesaid contention. Neither the complainant in CD nor the opposite parties sought for any such direction by the District Forum. The plaintiff in OS 284/91 also did not get herself impleaded in the complaint and also did not seek any such relief in the suit calling for the amount in the monthly income savings account of the complainant. On the basis of mere allegation in the plaint that the amount of Rs. 25000/- representing part of the amount said to have been given to the complainant''s wife by her parents, the District Forum is not justified either in law or on facts in directing Rs. 25,000/- with interest to be deposited to the credit of suit OS 284/91. We, therefore, set aside the direction of the District Forum in that regard and further direct the opposite parties to pay the amount of Rs. 25,000/- and accrued interest to the complainant in accordance with the terms and conditions of the monthly income savings account scheme.

It is next submitted that compensation of Rs. 250/- awarded by the District Forum is too low. But having regard to the circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that the order of the District Forum awarding compensation of Rs. 250/- does not call for any interference in the appeal.

IN the result, the Appeal FA 1139/95 is dismissed, and the Appeal FA No. 980/96 preferred by the complainant is allowed in part and the opposite parties are directed to pay principal sum of Rs. 25,000/- relating to monthly income saving account belonging to the complainant and also the monthly instalment amounts that became due and payable, in respect of the said amount with interest @ 12% p.a. from the dates on which the monthly instalments became due till the date of payment to the complainant in OP 21/95. There shall be no order as to costs in both the appeals. F.A. 1139/95 dismissed. F.A. 980/96 partly allowed.