SHASHIKANT MOHANLAL THACKER vs ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (PLI), OFFICE OF POST MASTER GENERAL

THE appellant is the original complainant who had deposited some amount in a postal scheme before the Post Office. THE Post Office has deducted, according to the complainant Rs. 170/- illegally by way of interest which the Post Office, according to the complainant (appellant) was not entitled to deduct. THE second grievance of the appellant is that the full payment was due on 30.12.1990 but the Post Office took time in calculating the interest and the amount of Rs, 6,426/- was paid on 17.1.91, the Post Office is also liable for the interest and other damages.

THE District Forum who heard the matter dismissed the complaint on a preliminary ground that the dispute was not a consumer dispute. THE District Forum relied upon the decision in the case of M/s. House of Dubary v. New Bank of India and Ors reported in I CPJ 1991 Page 110 (NC) and dismissed the complaint on the preliminary ground that there was no deficiency of service and, therefore, he had no jurisdiction to entertain and hear the matter. After giving careful consideration to the judgment delivered by the District Forum and the decision of the Hon''ble National Commission, we are of the opinion that the complaint has been wrongly rejected by the District Forum. It may be remembered that the banking services may not be strictly hiring of service. The relationship between the person who deposits and the banking institution which receives the money pays interest but the banks and government institutions pay less interest than the interest payable by commercial institutions and there is therefore some benefit which the banking institutions get while receiving deposits and this may constitute the consideration. However, the Legislature has deliberately inserted banking services in the definition of services given in Section 2(l)(o). That the first part of the definition was quite wide enough to include service of any description. In our opinion therefore the insertion of facilities in connection with banking and financing have been inserted with the intention to consider as full-fledged services. A legal fiction has been created and as held by the Supreme Court in several decisions the fiction must be taken to its logic end. In other words, all the services rendered by the banking or financing institutions shall have to be treated as services and receipt of less interest than commercial interest has to be considered as consideration.

If the Post office deducts the amount alleged to be compound interest wrongly it would amount to deficiency in service. We are not giving any opinion that it has been wrongly deducted since we have no benefit of the Judgment of the District Forum which has dismissed the complaint without entering into the merits. This is not a suit for account on a wild allegation. The complainant has specifically pleaded that the deduction of the amount of Rs. 170/- was wrong. Similarly he has raised the contention that he has been paid the full amount after 16 days. All these questions shall have to be decided by the District Forum.

WE hold that non payment of full interest is a deficiency in service and the District Forum had jurisdiction to decide the same after hearing the parties. The appeal is allowed. The decision of the District Forum is set aside. The case is remanded to the District Forum to decide in accordance with law after hearing both the parties. The cost shall be the cost in the cause. Appeal allowed. _________________