SUPDT. OF POST OFFICES , POST MASTER vs Gandikota Lakshmi Narasimham

BEING aggrieved by order dated 23.7.2009, passed by A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (for short, ''State Commission ''), Petitioners/O.Ps No.1 and 2 have filed this revision.

BRIEF facts are that respondent/complainant made following deposits with Petitioner no.2-post office under National Savings Scheme-1992 (for short, "NSS-1992 ") S. No. Date of Deposit Rate of Interest Amount of Deposit Account No. 1. 29.03.1997 11% Rs. 25,000/- 22083 2. 02.03.1998 11% Rs. 30,000/- 22089 3. 31.03.1998 11% Rs, 5,000/- 22089 4. 27.03.1999 11% Rs. 35,000/- 22102 5. 10.2.2001 10.5% Rs, 40,000/- 22108

It is alleged by the respondent that he is entitled to interest at the rate of 11% p.a. for four deposit and 10.5% on the fifth deposit with locking period of four years. Instead of paying the stipulated interest, petitioners paid interest contrary to the notification. Therefore, respondent claimed Rs.50,556/- towards differential amount of interest, alongwith compensation of Rs.25,000/- and costs of Rs.5,000/-.

PETITIONER in its counter reply, interalia stated; "3) It is true that the complainant opened the National Saving Scheme,1992 accounts at Sriramnagar Post Office, Rajahmundry as mentioned in paragraph 2 of the complaint. The rate of interest on deposits in respct of NSS-1992 accounts as per MOF(DEA) notification GSR 162(e) dated 1.3.2012 and 01.3.2003 are as follows; 1. From 01.10.1992 to 14.01.2000 - 11% 2. 15.01.2000 to 28.2.2001 - 10.5% 3. 01.03.2001 to 28.02.2002 - 9% 4. 01.03.2002 to 28.2.2003 - 8.5% 5. 01.03.2003 till date - 7.5% 4) The NSS, 1992 scheme is introduced with effect from 01.10.1992 and the salient features of the scheme issued vide DG (Posts) letter no.35-26/92-SB dated 18-09-1992 and 01.12.1992 clearly indicates at Item No.7 that Interest at the rates prescribed from time to time shall be allowed for calendar month as in savings accounts ". 5) The rule-6 of NSS 1992 scheme clearly states that interest at the rate admissible from time to time "shall be allowed for a calendar month of the lowest balance at credit of an account between the close of the tenth day and the end of the month and such interest shall be calculated and credited in the account at the end of each year ". 6) Basing on the above mentioned rule position, the interest admissible from time to time as mentioned above was correctly credited to the various accounts of the complainant. 7) It is submitted that the complainant is not entitled to get interest at the rate applicable as on the date of his deposit instead of the interest admissible from time to time. The complainant was categorically informed that as per the Rules of NSS, 1992 it is not possible to pay the interest at the rate as on date of deposit and the interest rate applicable is as prescribed from time to time by Government of India. The averments in paragraph 6 that unless and until the Gazette notification says it applied retrospectively, it got only prospective effect and so the amount of deposits paid by the complainant as stated in the said table would run to fetch the interest mentioned against there in without any reference to Gazette Notification changes are not true and correct. The Rules mentioned above and the Gazette Notification is binding on the complainant. 8) It is further submitted that DG(P) Lr. No. 35-26/92-SB dated 18.09.1992 and 01.12.1992 issued in accordance with GSR 763 (E) dated 15.09.1992 for introduction of NSS,1992 scheme it self stipulates that he deposits in NSS,1992 account will carry interest rate prescribed from time to time only, hence, the contention of the complainant that Gazettee Notification has no relevance in not tenable. 9) As per the averments in paragraph 4 of the complaint it is very clear that the complainant has got knowledge that the interest rate applicable for the period from 01.10.1992 to 14.1.2000 is 11% and from 15.01.2000 to 28.2.2001 is 10.5%. Therefore, it is very clear and on the admission made by the complainant in his complaint that the deposits in an account will carry the interest rates admissible from time to time. 10). The Opposite party submits that as per DG(P) Lr. No. 35-26/92-SB dated 18.09.1992 and 01.12.1992, interest rates prescribed from time to time shall be allowed for a calendar month as in saving accounts in respect of NSS, 1992 also, hence the same was informed to the complainant. 11) It is submitted that the deposits in NSS, 1992 may be withdrawn after expiry of four years from the end of the year in which account was opened, at the option of the depositor. It is to submit further that interest is paid to the complainant as per the Rule-06 of NSS, 1992, which stipulates various interest rates from time to time; hence absolutely there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties ".

District Forum, vide order dated 20.2.2009, held that petitioners '' post office acted upon the rules prescribed by the Department of Post and credited the interest rates from time to time in the respondent ''s account. Thus, there was no deficiency in service on their part. Accordingly, it dismissed the complaint.

AGGRIEVED by the order of the District Forum, respondent filed appeal before the State Commission, which partly allowed the same. It directed petitioners to pay Rs.50,556/- together with interest on the principal amounts deposited at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of realization with costs computed at Rs.5,000/-. Hence, this revision.

WE have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondent. We have also gone through the record as well as written arguments filed by the respondent.

IT is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that as per circulars dated 18.9.1992 and 1.12.1992 of NSS-1992, respondent is entitled to interest as per rule-6 of this Scheme. Petitioners have credited interest at the rates as applicable from time to time on the deposits made by the respondent. Hence, impugned order is liable to be set aside. In support, learned counsel has relied upon the following judgments; (i) Sharada Niketan High School Vs.The Post Master Superintendent of Post Offices and Anr. (RP No. 29 of 2008, decided on 17.4.2012 by this Commission) (ii) Arulmighu Dhanda Yuidhapaniswamy Thirukoil, Palani, Tamil Nadu through its Joint Commissioner Vs. Director General of Post Offices, Departmnet of Posts and Ors. (2011) 13 Supreme Court Cases 220.

On the other hand, it is stated by respondent that all deposits made by him in NSS -1992, are in lock in period for four years. So, unless and until the lock in period is over he cannot withdraw the amount. But he can withdraw the interest credited to the respective account at his option and not suppose to touch the principal amount. The principal amount has to be given only after the maturity which shall carry11% p.a. or 10.5% p.a as interest, as per the National Saving Scheme Rules. Amendment of notification if any, is only prospective in nature and no retrospective effect can be given to it. Hence, there is no infirmity or ambiguity in the impugned order. In support, he relied upon the following judgments; (i) "Post Master, Dargamitta H.P.O., Nellore Vs. Raja Prameelamma (MS) (1998) 9 Supreme Court cases 706; (ii) Regional Transport Officer, Chittoor, etc. Vs. Associated Transport Madras (P) Ltd. and Ors. AIR1980 Supreme Court 1872 and (iii) ICICI Bank Ltd. and another Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and others AIR 2005 Supreme Court 3315.

STATE Commission, in the impugned order observed; "Rule 6 clearly mandates the Post Office to pay interest at 11% per annum for the period commencing from 1st October, 1992 to 14th January, 2000. The complainant having taken four NSS certificates between 29.03.1997 and 27.03.1999 entitled to interest at 11%. In regard deposit dt. 10.02.2001, clause 6(ii) applies. It is for the period from 15th January, 2000 but before 1st day of March, 2001. It stipulates interest at the rate of ten and a half per cent per annum shall be allowed for a calendar month. It is not in dispute that the complainant has made his claim only after expiry of locking period. The post office, the respondents herein did not file any notification in order to justify the calculation of interest as mentioned in the counter ranging from 7.5% to 11%. Had such notification been filed we could have been in a position to state whether the said notification would apply to the instant case. Since the notification mentioned above clearly supports the payment of interest at 11% and 10.5% respectively the complainant is entitled to the same. In the light of clause 7 of the rules mentioned above, the post office is clearly at fault, in applying notification dated 01.03.2002 and 01.03.2003, as mentioned by it in its counter. It could not have been applied with retrospective effect, more so when notification dated 15.09.1992 amended on 18.09.1992 has no force on the date of the maturity of the amounts of the complainant. The complainant/appellant relied a decision Regional Transport Officer, Chittoor, vs. Associated Transport, Madras (P) Ltd, reported in AIR 1972 and contended that Clause 6 cannot be applied retrospectively. The rules do not confer power to apply with retrospective effect or rules contemplate reopening of the account and calculating interest with retrospective rate of interest. Since the complainant is entitled to interest at 11% and 10.5% respectively, on the above certificates by virtue of Rule 6 of National Saving Scheme Rules 192, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to interest as claimed by him in the complaint. The respondents did not dispute the calculation made by the complainant at the rates mentioned invoking Rule 6 as we have earlier mentioned ".

PETITIONERS have relied upon Chapter 19 of NSS-1992 (page 57 of the paper book). It contains salient features of the Scheme. Clauses 6 and 7 of this Scheme state ; "(6) The deposits made by a depositor in NSS, 1987 on or after 1.4.1992 and upto 30th September, 1992 can be transferred at the option of the depositor under this scheme to the new account opened. (7) Interest at the rate prescribed from time to time shall be allowed for a calendar month as in savings accounts ".

Above clauses are not applicable to the facts of the present case as it is nobody ''s case, that respondent(being the depositor) wanted to open new account in which deposits made in ''National Savings Scheme '' be transferred.

ON the other hand, Clause 6 of National Saving Scheme Rules, 1992 issued vide MOF (DEA) Notification No. GSR.763 (E) dated 15-9-1992 and D.G. Post letter No.35-26/92-SB dated 18-9-1992(page 72 of the paper book) states; "6. Interest on deposits:- (1) (i) For the period commencing form the 1st day of October, 1992 to the 14th day of January, 2000, the interest at the rate of eleven per cent per annum shall be allowed for a calendar month on the lowest balance at credit of an account between the close of the tenth day and the end of the month an such interest shall be calculated and credited in the account at the end of each year. (ii) For the period from the 15th January, 2000 but before the 1st day of March, 2001 the interest at the rate of ten and half per cent per annum shall be allowed for a calendar month on the lowest balance at credit of an account between the close of the tenth day and the end of the month and such interest shall be calculated and credited in the account at the end of each year. " (iii) xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx (iv) xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx (v) xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx

CLAUSE 7 deals with the withdrawal and it states ; "7. Withdrawal:- (1) The interest credited in the account may be withdrawn at any time at the option of the depositor. (2) The deposits may be withdrawn after the expiry of four years from the end of the year in which the account was opened, at the option of the depositor. (3) The deposits or interest amount not withdrawn after it becomes due, will continue to earn interest at the rate as specified in rule 6 upto the date of its withdrawal ".

The petitioners have failed to establish that the case of respondent is not fully covered under the above clauses of the National Saving Scheme Rules,1992. Subsequent Notifications relied upon by the petitioners, would hence not be applicable at all to the facts of the present case, since these notifications cannot have any retrospective effect.

THUS , we do not find any ambiguity or illegality in the impugned order passed by State Commission. There is no merit in the present revision petition. The same is accordingly, dismissed

NO order as to cost.