SUPTD., POST OFFICE vs SUGAN CHAND

HEARD. Late Sh. Radheyshyam Sharma, brother of Sh. Sugan Chand, had opened two years Time Deposit Account No. 2265012 for Rs. 65,000/- with the appellant on 6.11.1992. Sh. Radheyshyam, the depositor died on 2.9.1993. Since he had not mentioned any nominee in the aforesaid account Sh. Suganchand respondent applied to the District Judge concerned for issue of a succession certificate to him in accordance with the provisions of Indian Succession Act, 1925. Such certificate was issued in his favour on 20.5.1998 making him entitled to obtain a sum of Rs. 1,05,203/- from the appellant. The respondent duly submitted the succession certificate along with his claim to the appellant on 10.6.1998. On 3.8.1998 the appellant made a payment of Rs. 81,306/- to the respondent. Since this payment was not made in accordance with the direction contained in the succession certificate, issued by the District Judge concerned, the respondent filed his complaint before the Forum on 8.10.1998. It may be mentioned here that before filing the complaint the appellant had made a further payment of Rs. 8,942/- to the respondent on 9.9.1998. Any way the Forum after having heard the parties directed the appellant to pay the amount due to the respondent in terms of the succession certificate with interest as per rules. The Forum further directed the appellant to pay an amount of Rs. 500/- to the respondent by way of cost of litigation. Aggrieved against such order of the Forum dated 1.4.1999, made in Complaint Case No. 1919/98 the appellant has filed this appeal before us.

RELYING heavily upon Rules 87 and 139 of the Post Office Savings Bank Mannual Vol. I issued under the Authority of Director General of Post, India and Secretary to the Government of India, Deptt. of Post, Ministry of Communication, the learned Counsel submitted that interest on the amount, payable to the respondent on account of the Time Deposit Account of the deceased, was payable as per Rule 139 only. It was further submitted that since the appellant was not a party before the District Judge concerned in the matter of issue of succession certificate, such order/judgment was not binding upon the appellant. It was further submitted that had the appellant been made a party by the respondent to the petition/application filed before the District Judge, the appellant could have brought the correct position of rules of the department to the notice and knowledge of the District Judge. It was further submitted that the Forum should not have awarded the amount in terms of the order of the District Judge and further should not have also awarded interest to the respondent in contravention of Rule 139 of the mannual. On the other hand the respondent, who argued his case himself, submitted that the appellant was very much a party to the succession proceedings before the District Judge. It was further submitted that the order of the District Judge in the matter of grant of succession certificate to the respondent, was binding upon the Forum and, therefore, it has committed no wrong in making its order in terms of the order of the District Judge.

The facts stated above are not much in dispute. the succession certificate, on the basis of which the appellant had released an amount of Rs. 81,306/- on 3.8.1998 to the respondent was submitted by the respondent to them. Such certificate has not been brought on the record of the Forum. Moreover, if the appellant considered that before issue of the succession certificate it should have been heard it would have approached the District Judge, after having come to know of the order granting succession certificate to the complainant. That was not done. Under such circumstances we find no merit in the argument that the order of the District Judge, made under the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 was not binding upon the Forum.

INSOFAR as the question of interest is concerned Rules 87 and 139 upon which reliance has been placed read as under: "87. (1) The claim to the amount of SB account standing in the name of a deceased depositor may be made on the basis of- (a) Nomination (b) Legal evidence (c) At the discretion of sanctioning authority upto Rs. 20,000/-. If the claim exceeds Rs. 20,000/- the claimant should be advised to obtain a Succession Certificate from a competent Court of law or produce the probate of a Will or letter of administration of the Estates of the deceased. 139. Where repayment of Time Deposit has become due but has not been made, interest shall be allowed on the deposit for a mixmum period of two years from the date of maturity to the date of repayment 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 accounts 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."

It may be pointed out that Sub-rule (3) of Rule 87 and the explanation thereunder clearly says that for the purpose of obtaining "legal evidence" the term ''Balance'' shall mean the balance at credit of the account of the deceased depositor on the date of death to which interest already accrued during the preceding years has been added but excluding the interest for the current year. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 87 mandates that when a claim is received, supported by "legal evidence" such as succession certificate, issued under the Indian Succession Act, 1925......the claimant will be requested to fill in an application in the prescribed form, reading the above rule carefully it comes out that after the issuance of the succession certificate in favour of the claimant by the District Judge, the appellant is bound to make payment to him in terms of such order. In-so-far as the provisions of Rule 139 are concerned it is no doubt true that such rule directs repayment of time deposit allowing interest thereupon for a maximum period of two years from the date of maturity to the date of re-payment of the deposit subject to the condition that such interest shall be simple and shall be calculated at the rate applicable from time-to-time, to saving account of the type of single or joint account and for the purpose of payment of interest any part of the period which is less than one month shall be ignored. The provisions of this rule shall have to be read subject to any directions given by the District Judge made in its order under the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. If the District Judge has awarded interest, which is not in conformity with the mandate issued in Rule 139, the Forum would be bound to follow and obey the order, as given by the District Judge,

IN view of the above we are of the opinion that the District Forum has rightly held that the appellant rendered deficient services to the respondent by not making payment of the amount due to him. In the course of hearing of the appeal the learned Counsel for the appellant has further referred to our order dated 21.8.2002 whereby we had directed that in the event of the appellant depositing the amount of cost at Rs. 500/- with the Forum, the Forum may proceed with the inquiry as to whether any further amount on account of interest, as per the basic order, remained due to the respondent from the appellant. The Forum was further directed to submit its report to the Commission. Vide its order dated 17.2.2003, a copy of which was produced by the respondent before us in the course of hearing of this appeal, the Forum has held that a sum of Rs. 21,614/- was payable by the appellant to the respondent on account of interest till 8.3.2003. We are of the opinion that in view of such report of the Forum we are not required to further ensure into the quantum of interest payable by the appellant. In the result, we find no force in this appeal and dismiss it accordingly with cost on parties. Appeal dismissed.