UNION OF INDIA & ANR. vs RAJINDER SINGH

Rule 4 of the Post Office (Monthly Income Account Rules) 1987 read as under: "4. Opening of account :- A depositor may operate more than one account under these rules subject to the condition that deposits in all accounts taken together shall not exceed rupees three lakhs in single account and rupees six lakhs in joint account."

The complainant/respondent along with two other family members deposited Rs.6 Lakhs each on four occasions in four different MIS Accounts of the post office. The share of the complainant/respondent in the aforesaid four deposits came to Rs.8 Lakhs, though it could not have exceeded Rs.3 Lakhs. The aforesaid excess deposit was detected by the auditors on 04.12.2007. The excess amount however came to be refunded to the complainant/respondent much later more than three years from the said deduction. Being aggrieved, the complainant/respondent approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint.

The petitioners opposed the complaint primarily on the ground that the deposit was in violation of the statutory rules and therefore no interest was payable on the excess amount deposited by the petitioner. As regards the delay in refund of the excess amount, it was alleged that the said delay occurred on account of the failure of the complainant to comply with certain formalities, which were required for the said refund.

The District Forum vide its order dated 11.11.2014 allowed the complaint and directed the petitioners to pay saving bank account interest on the excess deposit from the date of deposit till 04.12.2007 and thereafter interest @ 8% per annum. The petitioners were also directed to pay litigation expenses quantified at Rs.2,000/-.

Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioners approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed, the petitioners are before this Commission by way of this revision petition.

It is evident from a bare perusal of Rule 4 of the Post Office (Monthly Income Account Rules) 1987 that the complainant could not have deposited more than Rs.3 Lakhs in MIS Account, irrespective the number of the accounts opened by him. The rules have statutory in nature everyone including the complainant is presumed to know the said rule. Therefore, the share of the complainant in the deposits, to the extent it was more than Rs. 3 Lakhs, was unauthorized and no interest can be claimed on the said excess deposit. Therefore, in my opinion, the petitioners cannot be directed to pay even saving bank interest to the complainant on the aforesaid excess deposit of Rs.5 Lakhs.

However, in my opinion, once the excess deposits were deducted by the auditors on 04.12.2007, the petitioners ought to have refunded the same without insisting upon completion of any formality. The addresses of depositors are available with the post office. Therefore, nothing prevented the petitioner from refunding any excess deposit of Rs.5 Lakhs by sending a cheque/demand draft to the complainant on his address available with the post office. That however was not done. Had the petitioners refunded the excess deposits to the complainant immediately after 04.12.2007, he would have been in a position to deploy it in an appropriate instrument of saving. Had he put that money in a fixed deposit, he would have earned more than 8% per annum by way of an interest. Therefore the direction for payment of interest @ 8% per annum cannot be said to be unjustified.

For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned orders do not call any interference except the payment of interest on saving bank rates for the period till 04.12.2007 when the excess deposits were detected by the auditors. The impugned orders are modified accordingly. The payment in terms of this order, unless already made, shall be made within four weeks from today. The interest if any already paid to the complainant on the excess deposits can be adjusted while complying this order. The amount, if any deposited by the petitioners with the fora below, will be refunded to it after it has complied with this order. In case, the said payment has already been made to the complainant it can also be adjusted while complying this order.