Suptd Of Post Office Amritsar vs Ashok Kumar Huf

MR. Justice B.N.P. Singh, Presiding Member-Heard learned Counsel for petitioners and respondents, on admission. Since common issue is involved in both the revision petitions, these are being disposed of by this common order. However, facts of the case have been taken from RP No. 737/2010.

RESPONDENT-Om Parkash, opened PPF account with petitioners on 15.3.1990 in the name of Hindu Undivided Family (in short ''HUF''). As on 13.5.2008, an amount of Rs. 9,74,664 including that of the principal and interest accrued thereon was standing in his account. However, on maturity of the Scheme, the appellants/petitioners paid only Rs. 8,02,582 to the respondent against Rs. 9,74,664. As this fell short of the maturity value by Rs. 1,72,082, alleging deficiency in service on part of the appellants, a consumer complaint was filed with District Forum seeking payment of Rs. 1,72,082 along with compensation and interest from appellants/petitioners.

CLAIM was resisted by petitioners holding that Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs, Govt. of India, stopped continuance of PPF account in favour of HUF w.e.f. 31.12.2005, hence the respondent was not entitled to the interest admissible on PPF from the aforesaid specified date. The amount admissible to the respondent, it was stated was paid to the respondent. District Forum, however, accepting complaint of the respondent and having overruled contentions raised on behalf of appellants/petitioners, granted substantial relief to the respondents directing appellants/petitioners to pay a sum of Rs. 1,72,082 along with compensation. However, State Commission in appeal, having taken notice of the decision of National Commission in RP No. 2180/2004, Sr. Post Master v. Arvind Industries, held the claimant was entitled for interest @ 6% p.a. even though purchase of Kisan Vikas Patras in the name of HUF was in contravention of the Rules.

AGGRIEVED with the aforesaid finding of State Commission, petitioner authorities are in revision. Since continuance of account beyond a specified date of 31.12.2005 was in contravention of the Rules, notified by the Government of India, the bald plea made by Counsel for the petitioners was that the account was opened in the name of HUF and this contract was not binding on the Government.

WE have taken notice of finding of State Commission and also the submissions advanced on behalf of appellants/petitioners which evidently shows that even though Government of India had put a rider both on the opening of an account in the name of HUF and grant of interest, in terms of maturity value of deposits, beyond 31.12.2005, the deposits continued with the appellants/petitioners which make them liable to mitigate the suffering of the respondents. State Commission, taking most pragmatic view held that a balance is to be struck between the two extreme views on the basis of equitable justice, as neither interest would be payable at permissible rate of PPF nor at Savings Bank rate. The award of interest @ 6% p.a. on the deposits made after 31.12.2005 was most equitable and rationale and we, accordingly, affirm the finding of State Commission. The sum admissible in this back-drop be paid to the respondents, within two months. The ratio of decision in RP 737/2010 shall be applicable in RP No. 736/2010 also. If any deposits were made earlier by the appellants/petitioners, they be adjusted accordingly. Revision petitions in the circumstances, bearing no substance, are dismissed but with no order as to cost.