SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICE, FARIDKOT vs HARCHAND SINGH

THIS appeal has been filed by the appellant/opposite party Superintendent, Post Offices, Faridkot (hereinafter to be referred as Postal Authorities) against the order of the District Forum, Moga dated 1.9.1997-whereby the District Forum directed the Postal Authorities to pay a sum of Rs. 3,796.64 to the complainant by way of damages with costs which are assessed at Rs. 800/-.

IN a judgment of affirmance, facts in detail are not supposed to be delivered in. However, the relevant and necessary facts are required to be recapitulated. Shri Harchand Singh deposited Rs. 1,12,000/- under the Monthly INcome Scheme (M.I.S.) in Sub Post Office, Badhni Kalan on 6.7.1993 on interest @ 14% per annum payable monthly. He was paid interest on the said amount upto 5.10.1994 and thereafter the payment of interest was stopped by the Postal Authorities as the amount deposited by him as not multiple of ''six''. The complainant claimed the resumption of the payment of monthly interest and on the defaulting amount interest @ 18% per annum alongwith compensation for harassment and mental agony. The Post Authorities contested the complaint in their written version. They resisted the complaint on the ground that since the account opened by the complainant under M.I.S. Scheme was irregular being not divisible by ''six'' as per the Central Government Scheme, so on an audit objection the payment of interest was deferred till the account was regularised. The learned District Forum of Moga has discussed all the points in detail and have passed the order. The main question for consideration is as to whether deferring the interest on the amount deposited is arbitrary or based on reliable material. The next question co-related is as to whether there was deficiency in rendering service on account of deferring the interest on the amount deposited.

At the outset it may be stated that the amount was deposited by the complainant which was accepted by the officials of the Postal Authorities while opening the account. The amount was wrongly kept with the appellant against the instructions given in Monthly Income Scheme. If the amount was not the multiple of ''six'' it was the duty of the official collecting such amount at the initial stage not to accept. In the present case after paying interest on the deposited amount, it was stopped arbitrarily putting the blame on the depositor. Coupled with it is the deficiency in rendering service when the depositor was deprived of his right to use the interest on his deposited amount from 6.10.1994 to 5.7.1996. Thus, the payment of interest was deferred till the account was regularised. It may be noted here that the officials of Postal Authorities erred in depositing the wrong amount which was not multiple of ''six''. This wrong action gave rise to other discrepancies. The District Forum has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,796.64 to the complainant alongwith Rs. 800/- as costs, which is justified.

THE plea of the complainant to get compounded interest on the amount of damages has been rightly dismissed as no interest can be allowed on the damages. Under Section 14(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act compensation has been paid in the form of interest on the deferred amount which settles the matter adequately and sufficiently. THE direction of the District Forum for recovering the amount from the erring official needs no interference. It is left to the department to hold enquiry and find out erring official and after fixing responsibility to recover the amount if so desired. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is dismissed with costs of Rs. 500/- to be paid to the respondent within one month. Appeal dismissed.