AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
IA/8922/2016
Delay in making the deposit in terms of order dated 8.7.2016 is condoned. Let the draft in the sum of 1,32,200/- be accepted by this office during the course of the day.
The application stands disposed of accordingly. REVISION PETITION
This Revision Petition, by the Superintendent of Post Office, Banaskantha Division, Gujarat, the First Opposite Party in the Complaint, is directed against the order dated 5.2.2016 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat at Ahmedabad (for short "the State Commission") in Appeal No.640/2012. By the impugned order, while reversing the order dated 20.3.2016, passed by the Banaskantha District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Palanpur (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint No.75/2011, the State Commission has directed the Petitioner to refund to the Complainant, a sum of 1,32,200/- along with interest at savings account rate from 23.10.2005, i.e. the date of death of the joint account holder.
The short controversy arising for consideration in the present Revision Petition is as to whether the State Commission was justified in directing the refund of the said amount, being the excess amounts paid to the Complainant towards Bonus and interest on the whole of the amount of 6,00,000/-, deposited jointly in the names of the Complainant and her husband on 15.10.2003 under the Monthly Income Scheme (MIS). The case of the Petitioner is that under the Scheme, after the death of a joint account holder, 50% of the amount deposited had to be withdrawn by the surviving account holder and thereafter the joint account was to be treated as a single-holder account, and therefore, on the death of Complainant''s husband on 23.10.2005, she was entitled to interest, bonus, etc. only on half of the total amount, i.e., 3,00,000/-. However, since the Complainant did not inform the Petitioner about the death, excess bonus and interest paid on the total sum of 6,00,000/-, was recoverable from her. The stand of the Complainant, on the other hand, was that since she was not made aware of such terms and conditions at the time of accepting the said deposit, she should not be penalized by deducting the alleged excess amounts at the time of refund of the principal amount on maturity, after the death of her husband. More so, when admittedly she had not withdrawn half of the principal amount viz.6,00,000/-, to which she was entitled to, on the death of her husband.
It is evident from the impugned order that while arriving at the conclusion that the Petitioner was not justified in deducting the whole of the amount of interest as also 50% of the bonus due on full deposit of 6,00,000/- and directing the Petitioner to pay interest at the lowest saving account rate, what has weighed with the State Commission is the fact that the amount of 3,00,000/-, which the Complainant could have withdrawn on 23.10.2005, on the death of her husband, remained with the Post Office and therefore, instead of the Complainant getting stipulated interest at the rate of 10% p.a., under the Scheme, at least a bare minimum interest paid by the Post Office on saving accounts should be paid to her.
Regard being had to the fact that no material was brought on record to show that the terms and conditions of the said Scheme were supplied and explained to the account-holder, hailing from a small town, which document, on record, runs into quite a few Chapters, as also the quantum of the amount involved, we do not find it to be a fit case for exercise of our limited Revisional jurisdiction.
Consequently, the Revision Petition is dismissed, keeping open the question of law, sought to be raised in the Revision Petition, to be decided in an appropriate case.
The amount deposited by the Petitioner, in terms of our order dated 8.7.2016, shall be released to the Complainant forthwith.
The Revision Petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs.