Sr. Post Master vs Karta Ram Niwas Singal

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 16.7.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only),vide which it accepted the complaint qua the Opposite Party, and directed it, as under: "(i) To pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum, on the amount of the complainant i.e. Rs. 2.50 lacs, from the date of their respective deposits, during the period it remained and deposited with it i.e. w.e.f. 22.2.2006 to 31.1.2011. (ii) To pay compensation of Rs. 15,000 to the complainant for causing him mental and physical harassment, along with litigation cost of Rs. 10,000. This order be complied with by the OP within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which it shall be liable to pay the interest as penalty at the rate of 12% per annum instead of 6% p.a., on the amount of Rs. 2.50 lacs, from the date of their respective deposits, during the period effective from 22.2.2006 to 31.1.2011, as well as to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the compensation amount of Rs. 15,000 from the date of filing this complaint i.e. 2.4.2012 till its actual payment, besides paying litigation costs as aforesaid. "

THE facts, in brief, are that the complainant opened PPF A/c No. 307731 on 19.3.1990 as Karta of HUF, which was transferred from Hisar to the opposite party Bank at Chandigarh on 15.12.1999, which ultimately matured on 1.4.2005. It was stated that the opposite party Bank extended the account of the complainant for a further period of 5 years, without asking him to fill and sign Form-H and the subscription of the complainant was accepted upto 31.3.2010. It was further stated that on 1.7.2010, the complainant applied for the closure of the account but he was informed by the opposite party Bank,vide letter dated 24.7.2010 that he was not entitled to interest after 1.4.2005, in view of the instructions of Ministry of Finance. It was further stated that the complainant requested the opposite party,vide letter dated 5.8.2010, to regularize the account, but to no effect. It was further stated that after long struggle, the opposite party, paid interest on the deposits upto 1.4.2005, but it did not pay any interest on the amount of Rs. 2,50,000w.e.f. 22.2.2006 to 31.1.2011, though the amount was received under protest. It was further stated that a legal notice was also sent to the opposite party, but to no avail. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed. Opposite party, in its written version, admitted the factum of opening and transfer of PPF account of the complainant from Hisar to Chandigarh. It was stated that the account matured on 1.4.2005 after the completion of lock-in period of 15 years, and the same was not extended for further 5 years, as alleged by the complainant. It was further stated that the complainant neither applied for extension of account nor any order was passed for extension by any Postal Authority. It was further stated thatvide letters dated 20.5.2005 and 20.10.2005 of the Ministry of Finance and D. G. Posts letter dated 14.11.2005, the HUF accounts, which were opened prior to 13.5.2005, were to continue only upto the date of maturity and not to be extended further and no interest was payable after the date of maturity of HUF account. It was further stated that inadvertently the date of opening of the account was fed in the computer as 15.3.1997, the date of transfer of the account from GPO Ambala to Hisar HQ and the account was transferred to Sector 15 Post Office on 15.12.1999. It was further stated that as per the instructions of Ministry of Finance, the HUF account could not be extended beyond the period of maturity, and in case of irregular deposits, it would not carry interest and the same could not be granted even by the Court. It was further stated that due to wrong feeding of the entries in the computer, the amount was being deposited and the interest was credited but on observing the irregularity, the same was informed to the complainant, who was asked to withdraw the principal amount as no interest was payable as per the Rules on irregular deposits. It was further stated that there was no deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of opposite party. The remaining allegations, contained in the complaint were denied.

THE parties led evidence, in support of their case.

AFTER hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to above, in the opening para of the instant order. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant/ opposite party, has filed the instant appeal.

WE have heard the Counsel for the appellant, Counsel for the respondent, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.

THE Counsel for the appellant/opposite party, submitted that the complainant opened one PPF Account, in the year 1990, in his name in the capacity of HUF and the same got matured on 1.4.2005, after completion of lock-in period of 15 years. He further submitted that the complainant requested the Opposite Party for extension of the PPF Account, and, the same was duly accepted by the Account Office. He further submitted that the complainant was paying the subscription fee from 2006 till 31.3.2010, which was duly accepted by the opposite party and thus, he paid a total sum of Rs. 2.50 lacs, towards the subscription fee. The Counsel further submitted that when on 1.7.2010, the respondent/complainant applied for closure of the account, the Senior Post Master, Chandigarhvide letter dated 24.7.2010 informed the complainant that he was not entitled to interest on any amount after 1.4.2005, as per the note appended to MOF (DEA) Notification No. GSR 291(E) dated 13.5.2005, as per which, the existing accounts opened by HUF and association of persons or a body of individuals in either case before 13.5.2005 would continue till maturity and would not be extended further and no interest would be allowed for the period after the date of maturity. It was further mentioned that the deposits/withdrawals in/from these accounts shall be allowed to be made in accordance with the said rules and any such accounts opened on or after 13.5.2005 shall be treated as void ab-initio and immediate action should be taken to close such accounts and refund the deposits without any interest to the subscribers. Such accounts once closed cannot be opened againw.e.f.13.5.2005. Therefore, the Counsel submitted that the complainant/respondent is not entitled to any interest on the deposited amount. The Counsel for the appellant also placed reliance on Civil Appeal No. 4995 of 2006 titled as Arulmighu Dhandayudhapaniswamy Thirukoil, Palani v. The Director General of Post Offices, III (2011) CPJ 25 (SC)=decided on 13.7.2011. On the contrary, the Counsel for the respondent/complainant submitted that the District Forum rightly allowed the complaint against the appellant/ opposite party and the appeal filed by the appellant deserved dismissal.

ADMITTEDLY , the PPF Account of the respondent/complainant matured on 1.4.2005 and the same was further extended by the opposite party in the year 2006 for the next five years. The complainant was duly depositing the subscription fee till the maturity of the PPF Account but when he approached for the encashment of the same, the Opposite Party refused to grant interest on the deposited amount in view of the Note appended to MOF (DEA) Notification No. GSR 291(E) dated 13.5.2005, as the Government of India closed down the PPF Schemew.e.f. 13.5.2005. However, as per Sub-clause (3A) of Clause 9, which deals with "Continuation of account with deposits after maturity ", of Ministry of Finance (DEA) Notifications No. F.6(1)-PD/86 dated 30.4.1986 and N.S.O.279(E) dated 2.4.1989, the complainant could exercise an option with the Account Office in Form-H and could continue to subscribe for a further block period of five years. As such, the complainant was entitled to get the PPF Account extended for a further period of five years and he opted for the same. Further as per Clause (8) under ''HEADING "Clarifications " of [MOF (DEA) Notifications N.F.3(8)-PD/84 dated 22.7.1985, No. F.3(6)-PD/86 dated 23.6.1986 and No. GSR 1013(E) dated 20.8.1986], it was the duty of the Account Office, before accepting the subscription, to obtain an option in writing from the complainant, in Form H, to continue the account after the date of its maturity, but the opposite party without accepting such option, in writing, in Form H, straightaway accepted the subscription fee and extended the account for further five years. Hence, it stands proved that the opposite party was at fault by not obtaining Form H, from the complainant before extending his account for next five years. Therefore, on account of the fault of the opposite party, the complainant/respondent could not be made to suffer and as such, he was entitled to interest on the amount of Rs. 2,50,000 for the period from 22.2.2006 to 31.1.2011, as applicable to PPF Account deposits.

THE opposite party was, thus, deficient in rendering service by not granting interest on the deposits referred to above. However, the District Forum while allowing the complaint, awarded interest @ 6% per annum, on the amount of Rs. 2.50 lacs, from the date of their respective deposits, during the period it remained deposited with the appellant/ opposite party i.e. 22.2.2006 to 31.1.2011 though, it is not on record that what was the rate of interest on the PPF Account at the relevant time. Therefore, the objection raised by the Counsel for the appellant/ opposite party that the District Forum wrongly awarded interest on the basis of equity, is not tenable. Even otherwise, no appeal has been filed by the respondent/complainant for enhancement of rate of interest. Moreover, the facts of the judgment relied upon by the Counsel for the appellant/opposite party in the case of Arulmighu Dhandayudhapaniswamy Thirukoil, Palani v. The Director General of Post Offices (supra), are totally distinguishable and thus, ratio of law laid down therein is not applicable to the present case. In these circumstances, we concur with the order passed by the District Forum. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellant/opposite party.

THE impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

IN view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant/opposite party, is dismissed, being devoid of merit, with no orders as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

THE file be consigned to Record Room, after completion. First Appeal dismissed.