SENIOR POST MASTER, HEAD POST OFFICE vs K.G. SHARMA

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 3.12.2002, passed by District Forum, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi, in Complaint Case No. OC/2238/1999 - entitled Shri K.G. Sharma v. Head Post Master, Post Office, Parliament Street, G.P.O., New Delhi.

THE case of the respondent before the District Forum was that he had deposited a sum of Rs. 2,40,000/- in M.I.S. Account bearing No. 102191 on 27.2.1993 and was entitled to receive interest and bonus, at the rate as amended from time to time, on the completion of six years. However, the respondent was informed by the appellant vide letter dated 25.1.1999 that the said account had been opened in contravention of the rules prevailing for M.I.S. accounts, as the maximum limit prescribed for investment under the Scheme was Rs. 2,04,000/- only whereas the respondent had deposited Rs. 2,40,000/- as such, the account being irregular, the respondent was entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,51,570/- only after deducting the interest paid and bonus due on the deposit, which exceeded maximum limits of the investment under the rules. Aggrieved by the said act of the appellant, the respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum praying for interest and bonus on the entire amount deposited. The defence of the O.P. in its reply/written version filed before the District Forum was that the account opened by the respondent was in contravention of the rules and regulations of Post Office M.I.S. Scheme. As per M.I.S. rules the maximum limit prescribed for the deposit in an M.I.S. account was Rs. 2,04,000/- whereas the respondent had deposited in contravention of the said limit. It was further stated on behalf of the appellant that Department of Posts carries out agency work of Savings Schemes, on behalf of the National Savings Organisation under the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, which decides the policy matters i.e. rules regarding Savings Schemes and regularization of irregular accounts. Furthermore, such similar cases of irregular accounts had already been turned down by the Ministry of Finance and it had been directed that no interest was payable on irregular accounts of deposit and, as such, the appellant was not entitled to interest on the amount in excess of the prescribed limit. As such, on detection of irregular account of the complainant the same was closed on 3.3.1999 and an amount of Rs. 2,51,570/- was paid to the complainant after deducting the interest paid and bonus due on the deposit of the complainant which exceeded the maximum limit of investment under the rules. Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant, the complaint filed by the respondent was liable to be dismissed.

The learned District Forum on the basis of material on record held the appellant guilty of deficiency in service and, as such, directed the appellant to pay balance maturity amount to the complainant along with interest @ 9% from the date of maturity till realization together with cost of Rs. 1,000/-.

AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid order, the appellant has preferred the present appeal before this Commission. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant at length on the question of admission of the present appeal and have also carefully gone through the documents/material placed on record. In the first instance it is observed that the present appeal, filed by the appellant, is hopelessly time barred as the impugned order is dated 3.12.2002 whereas the present appeal has been filed on 28.5.2003. In the application for condonation of delay annexed with the appeal, the appellant has not even mentioned the date on which the certified copy of the impugned order was received by it nor has mentioned any dates on which the concerned file was sent to the various departments for obtaining permission for filing the appeal. Merely on the ground that the Competent Authority on account of prevalent system in the Government took time to grant permission to file the appeal does not entitle the appellant for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. It has been held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the Case of P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala & Anr., reported as AIR 1998 (SC), that though law of limitation may harshly effect a particular party, it has to be applied with all its vigour when the statute so prescribes and the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. Furthermore, the Hon''ble National Commission in case of Vice Chairman v. O.P. Gauba, reported as III (1995) CPJ 18 (NC)=1986-96 Consumer 2731 (NS), has categorically held that mere inter-office consultation for prolonged period cannot constitute ''sufficient cause'' for condonation of delay. Following the aforesaid dictum this Commission has held in a number of cases that mere procedural delay does not constitute ''sufficient cause'' in order to exercise the discretion for condonation of delay. Accordingly, since the appellant has not shown any ''sufficient cause'' for the condonation of delay in terms of Section 15 of the Act, we are not inclined to allow the said application of the appellant and accordingly, the same is dismissed. With the dismissal of the application of the appellant for condonation of delay, the present appeal, filed by the appellant, is also liable to be dismissed as barred by limitation.

HOWEVER, even on merits the appellant has no case because as per own averments of the appellant, especially in para 4 of the memorandum and grounds of appeal, in case of an irregular account as per rule the same has to be closed immediately. Whereas in the instant case, the account was opened on 23.2.1993 and was closed only on 3.3.1999, i.e. almost after the completion of six years. As such, it does not lie in the mouth of the appellant to say that the same was opened in contravention of M.I.S. Rule No. 4 of Post Office M.I.S. Rules, 1997. Had that been so, the appellant would have duly intimated the respondent immediately and his account closed at the earliest opportunity. It is also not the case of the appellant that at the time of opening of the account or any time prior to January, 1999 the appellant was informed that the amount deposited by him was in excess of the maximum limit prescribed under the said account/scheme. Further more, as per rules placed on record and as admitted by the appellant in para 3 of the memorandum and grounds of appeal, the maximum limit for deposit in a single M.I.S. account was amended vide notification dated 29.4.1993 effective from 1.6.1993. Whereas it is an admitted fact that the respondent Shri K.G. Sharma had opened the account on 23.2.1993 i.e. prior to coming into force of the amended prescribed limit of Rs. 2.04 lakhs. Therefore, the same could not be made applicable to the respondent retrospectively. As such, the present appeal, filed by the appellant, is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. The same is, therefore, dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, stands disposed of in above terms. Appeal disposed of.