PRAFULBHAI MANIBHAI PATEL vs Union of India

-BY consent of the learned Advocates for the parties, all the three appeals have been heard together as similar questions arise therein.

ALL the three appeals arise from order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kheda at Nadiad in Complaint Application Nos. 53, 54 and 55 of 2002 on 31.3.2003, dismissing the complaint. Facts which are not in dispute might broadly be recapitulated. Five brothers deposited Rs. 1,98,000/- each jointly with their mother in each of the deposits under the Monthly Income Scheme of the opponent Postal Department and deposits receipts bearing No. 543442 to 543446 came to be issued. The deposits were maturing on 17.6.2001 upon expiry of five years of the term of the deposits. In the meantime it was noticed that there was breach of Rule 3 read with Rule 4 of the Post Office (Monthly Income Account) Rules, 1987. This resulted into repayment of first two deposit receipts in their entirety without recovering back the monthly interest paid. Even the bonus was paid. The dispute between the parties arose regarding remaining three deposits. The monthly interest paid came to be recovered and balance amount came to be drawn as required to be refunded. The complainants moved the learned Forum insofar as the said three deposits were concerned. During the pendency of the complaints, accounts made up and payments were made pursuant to the notification dated 20.8.2001 and 4.7.1999 respectively under Rules 11 and 19 and there is no dispute with regard to such accounts even in these appeals. What has been disputed is the deduction of monthly interest insofar as mother was concerned as her share of the limit stood exhausted in respect of first two deposits which was paid in entirety. The questions which arise in these appeals, therefore, relate to- (1) The accounts even for the three remaining deposits cannot be said to be joint accounts and should be treated as separate accounts and no deduction should be allowed. (2) The payments were made during the pendency of the complaint on 21.10.2002 whereas the deposits matured on 17.6.2001 and, therefore, the complainants would be entitled to payment of interest at the stipulated rate of 12% for delayed payment. (3) Acceptance of the deposits by the opponent Postal Department and payment of interest after considerably long period in all the accounts would result into waiver of the right of the opponent Postal Department in levying recovery.

Insofar as the first question with regard to joint account is concerned, this Commission had an occasion to consider the proposition in Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices. Fatehganj Post Office. Fateh Ganj, Baroda and Another v. Vijaybhai Ghanshyambhai Shah and Others, in Appeal No. 162 of 2000 and two other appeals decided on 10.1.2001 and relying on the decision of the Apex Court referred to in that order, this Commission upheld the contention of the Postal Department that as soon as one more person joins in opening of a MIS Account, it becomes a joint account irrespective of the fact that first account holder is a different holder in all the accounts. On further elaborating the proposition, there is no rule or provision which defines joint account under the scheme in question. The banking practice with regard to first account holder being the real account holder is also not applicable to MIS account which operates under the statutory rules. The plain or ordinary meaning of interpretation of the word ''jt.'' (for joint) in relation to accounts would indicate that where more than one person surfaces in the holding of accounts, it becomes a joint account. Therefore, if the matter is viewed from any angle, no sooner the mother joined in the accounts with each of the sons, each of the accounts became joint account and the limitation as contained in Rule 4 of the Post Office (Monthly Income Account) Rules, 1987 would apply.

INSOFAR as question of waiver is concerned, opening of the accounts known as Monthly Income Accounts and issuance of appropriate receipts in respect of such deposits are governed by the aforesaid rules which are statutory in nature. The submission based on the concept of waiver will not apply as there cannot be any waiver against statute. Taking the submission with regard to delayed payment, we find that there is some substance in the submission. There was no direction or injunction against the opponent Postal Department in making payment according to its own working on the date of maturity. As a matter of fact, payment came to be made during the pendency of the complaints. Three deposits were due for payment on 17.6.2001 whereas the payments were made on 21.10.2002 after understanding the accounts. In our considered opinion, the complainants would be entitled to interest at the stipulated rate of 12% from 17.6.2001 to 21.10.2002. To that extent the complainants in each of the relevant complaints, now appellants in question will succeed:

IN view of what is stated above and bearing in mind the facts and circumstances of the case, we pass following order. ORDER Impugned order passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kheda at Nadiad in Complaint Application Nos. 53, 54 and 55 of 2002 on 31.3.2003 will stand modified to a limited extent of following directions. (a) The opponent Postal Department will pay interest @ 12% on the amount paid in each of the cases during the pendency of the complaint from 17.6.2001 to 21.10.2002 within eight weeks from today. All the three appeals will accordingly stand partly allowed while maintaining the order of dismissal of the complaints for the remaining reliefs. No order as to costs all throughout. (b) The main order be kept in Appeal No. 390 of 2003 and xerox copy thereof be placed in other two appeals.

Appeals partly allowed.