SENIOR SUPERINDENT OF POST OFFICES vs MAYA DEVI DUBEY

BOTH these appeals arise from the order dated 1.2.2002 passed in Case No. 171/99 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jabalpur, hence taken-up together and are being disposed of by this common order.

THE matter pertains to nine accounts opened jointly by complainant-Smt. Maya Devi Dubey and her husband-K.K. Dubey under Monthly Income Scheme (MIS) of the Indian Post Offices. It is no more in dispute that the complainants in these accounts have deposited a total sum of Rs. 8,43,000/- on various dates. Accounts were opened at two different Post Offices of Jabalpur town. Except for the two accounts opened on 18.4.1995 for Rs. 4,08,000/- and Rs. 60,000/-, all other accounts were opened on different dates. It is no more in dispute that these accounts were opened in contravention to the Post Office (Monthly Income Account) Rules, 1987 which provided for a limit of Rs. 4,08,000/- in case of joint account opened by more than one persons, either in one Post Office or more or one single date or on various dates. THE table as extracted by the Forum below in para 2 of its order clearly goes to show that it was a case of deliberate attempt on the part of the complainants to subvert the rules and take undue advantage of the said scheme. Even otherwise, ignorance of rules is no defence available to any party. It is interesting to note that the Forum below itself has held that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party-Post Office in closing down the Account No. 27104 opened by the complainants on 18.4.1995 for Rs. 4,08,000/- which was clearly in excess to the limit prescribed under the rules. The Forum below has, however, awarded interest at the Saving Bank rate on this excess amount which in our opinion was not justified under the rules. The point projected in these appeals stand concluded by three decisions of this Commission rendered in Appeal No. 647/2001 decided on 25.7.2002, Mrs. Jeroo Masalawala v. The Sub-Post Master, Appeal No. 121/2001 decided on 8.11.2003; Amarchand Jain v. Post Master; and Appeal No. 1057/2001 decided on 30.12.2003, Post Master v. Brijmohan Garg.

Mr. V.K. Saxena, learned Counsel for complainants, who are respondents in Appeal No. 387/2002 and appellants in Appeal No. 415/2002, has placed reliance on two decisions of the National Commission in the case of Dr. R.C. Saxena, 1997 (1) CPR 74 (NC), and K.M. Singh, I (2003) CPJ 167 (NC), wherein some orders awarding interest on Saving Bank rate passed by District Forum/State Commission were affirmed. It is, however, interesting to note that in the decision in K.M. Singh (supra), the earlier decision in the case of Dr. R.C. Saxena (supra), was virtually over-ruled and it was observed "judgment in the case of Department of Post and Telegraphs v. Dr. R.C. Saxena, does not, therefore, lay a good law." The ratio of the decision in the case of K.M. Singh (supra) is clear that no account in contravention to the rules would be illegal and closure of any such illegal account would not amount to deficiency in service.

AS already observed in the present case, there has been deliberate attempt on the part of the complainant-depositors to subvert the rules and that being so, they cannot be allowed to take any advantage of their own wrong. The order for payment of interest passed by the Forum below, therefore, deserves to be set aside. In the result, while we dismiss Appeal No. 415/2002 filed by the complainants, we allow Appeal No. 387/2002 filed by the Postal Authorities and set aside the direction of the Forum below for payment of interest to the complainants. We, however, make no order as to costs which the parties are left to bear their own as incurred throughout.

THIS order be retained in Appeal No. 387/2002 and a copy be placed in Appeal No. 415/2002. Appeal No. 415/2002 dismissed. Appeal No. 387/2002 allowed.