SUPERINTENDENT, GENERAL POST OFFICE vs Jagmohan Lal

THIS appeal is by the Superintendent, General Post Office, Kapurthala challenging order of District Forum, Jalandhar dated August 20,1996 whereby the complaint filed by Jagmohan Lal and Smt. Santosh Kumari was allowed with the direction to the Post Office to pay interest to the complain ant @ 18% p.a. w.e.f. May 18,1993. A sum of Rs. 500/- as costs was also allowed,

THE complainants'' case was brief. THEy had a joint account with Post Office, Bapa Rai Kalan, Nakodar, District Jalandhar wherein they had deposited Rs. 20,000/- on May 18,1990 for a period of three years as term deposit account. THE amount matured on May 18, 1993. THE interest was paid yearly. Since on maturity the amount was not paid, the complaint was filed on October 29,1993 before the District Forum. THE complainant had to start construction of the house and he suffered monetary loss as the amount was not made available. He claimed Rs. 15,000/- as compensation for the heavy loss suffered. In the reply filed by the Post Office, the factum of deposit having been made was admitted, THE case was alleged to have been sent to the higher authorities for sanction. It was alleged that T.L. Kaila had misappropriated the amount from the accounts of the Post Office. THE amount of interest was not accounted for in the books of the Post Office. In the rejoinder filed by the complainant, they reiterated their claim. Jagmohan Lal filed his own affidavit in support of the allegation made in the complaint. THE Department during the pendency of the complaint paid a sum of Rs. 27,039/as mentioned in the letter dated March 14, 1996 (page 21 of the District Forum Record). THE details of the amount paid are as under : A copy of Rule 139 from Post Office Saving Bank Manual, Volume-1 was also produced which is at page 23 of the District Forum Record authorising payment of interest on Bank rate on delayed payment of the matured amount.

The District Forum found deficiency in rendering service for non-payment of the amount in the account referred to above within reasonable period and thus directions were given for adjustment of the amount already paid, which was otherwise payable with 18% p.a. interest.

LEARNED Counsel for the Post Office relying upon Rule 139 argued that the grant of interest more than the Bank rate by the District Forum is against the mandatory provisions of the Post Office Saving Bank Manual (Rules). The Bank rate being 5.5% p.a. as payment of interest, is applicable and while sanctioning the amount, interest was added thereto as mentioned in the letter dated March 14, 1996. For three years, interest was calculated as per agreement which amounted to Rs. 6,465/- @ 5.5% p.a. which amounted to Rs. 2,674/-. The total amount thus payable was Rs. 29,139/- and therefrom deduction was made of Rs. 2.100/-, interest already paid, leaving the balance amount being paid was Rs. 27,039/-. The question for consideration in this appeal thus centres around of the interpretation of the rule aforesaid read with Section 14(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the FORA under the Consumer Protection Act had no jurisdiction to grant interest @ 18% p.a., which is in violation of the statutory Rule 139 referred to above. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed on the decision of Gujarat State Commission in "Superintendent of Post Offices & Anr. v. Shah Champak Lal Chunilal". We have given due consideration to the ratio of the decision aforesaid. With great respect to the Members of the State Commission aforesaid, we dis-agree with the view expressed therein. Rule 139 of the Post Office Rules reads as under : "Rule 139. Where re-payment of Time Deposit has become due but has not been made, interest shall be allowed on the deposit for a maximum period of two years from the date of maturity to the date of re-payment of the deposit subject to the following conditions, namely : (a) The interest shall be simple and shall be calculated at the rate applicable, from time-to time, to Savings Account of the type of single or joint account. (b) For the purpose of payment of interest, any part of the period which is less than one month shall be ignored."

This rule authorises the Post Office to pay interest on the amount deposited at the Bank rate applicable for Savings Accounts for delayed payment. Under the Consumer Protection Act [Section 14(1)(d)], a legal duty has been cast on the FORA to direct compensation to be paid to the complainant for the loss suffered on account of any negligent act of the opposite party. The Civil Court has been authorised to grant interest at the time of passing final orders @ 6% p.a. or at a higher rate as per agreement of the parties u/Sec. 34 of C.P.C. Such provision is not otherwise attracted to the proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act when the question of quantum of loss suffered by the complainant is to be considered. In a given case, the amount of loss suffered may exceed the interest to be calculated at the Bank rate. Under Section 14(1)(d), there is no mention of any compensation at the fixed rate of interest on the amount found due. If the complainant succeeds in establishing his loss suffered on account of negligent act of the opposite party, a direction for giving compensation accordingly can be made by the FORA. In case the complainant fails to prove any specific loss, grant of interest @ 18% p.a. on the money value is generally treated as reasonable and just compensation payable. Thus such compensation is not payment of interest as such but it is calculated on the basis of interest. Rule 139 (supra) will not be in the latter category of cases where compensation for the loss suffered is to be determined. Counsel for the appellant relied upon the decision of the National Commission in "Telecom District Engineer v. Ramji Dass", III (1992) CPJ 24 (NC) wherein it was held that the FORA under the Consumer Protection Act has no jurisdiction to challenge any statutory rule being against the provisions of the Constitution on the ground of unreasonable interest. The ratio of the aforesaid decision cannot be applied to the case in hand. Validity of the rule being against the provisions of the Constitution is not challenged by Counsel for the complainant. As already stated above, the dispute is only regarding payment of compensation and not varies of any rule. We reiterate our view earlier expressed that when the complain ant has failed to establish particular loss, grant of 18% p.a. interest on the money value would be just compensation and that such grant of compensation is not interest although basis for determining such compensation is calculation made at the rate of interest being 18% p.a. The District Forum was fully justified in granting compensation for delayed payment of the matured amount @ 18% p.a. interest by way of compensation. The amount paid during the pendency of the complaint would be adjusted. We dismiss the appeal with costs of Rs. 500/-. Appeal dismissed.