Union of India vs J. MICHAEL

THIS appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''1986 Act'') against the order dated 7.11.2002 passed by the learned District Forum, Jaipur II, Jaipur whereby the complaint of the complainant-respondents was allowed and the appellants were directed to pay the amount standing on the credit of the PPF account of the complainant with interest, and awarded damages and cost of litigation also.

THE brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the complainant-respondents had opened one PPF joint account on 21.3.1988 at Shastri Nagar Post Office, Jodhpur. This account was later transferred to G.P.O., Jaipur on 30.9.1998. THEreafter the respondents operated that account from time-to-time till October, 1999. In November, 1999 the respondents wanted to withdraw an amount of Rs. 90,000 for the marriage of their daughter but the appellants refused to pay the amount and verbally informed them that there is an audit objection in regard to opening of the account in joint name. THE appellants received the amounts deposited by the respondents in the same account on 11.2.2000 and 7.3.2001. THE appellants informed the respondents on 1.2.2001 for the first time that the joint account cannot be regularized. THE respondents alleged that the amount standing at their credit till 1998-99 was Rs. 2,29,926 and thereafter interest for the years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 was not given. In this way, the respondent had filed a complaint in the Forum below claiming an amount of Rs. 3,70,526 from the appellants on account of the refund of the deposit, damages and cost of litigation. The appellants replied that the account was irregularly opened and as such no interest is payable. The appellants admitted that an amount of Rs. 1,90,426 was credited in the account as interest but it has now again been debited in the account of the respondents. The appellants admitted that only an amount of Rs. 39,500 remains in the account of the respondents which can be withdrawn by them.

After hearing both the parties and going through the evidence produced by them, the learned District Forum held that the appellants have committed deficiency in service and as such allowed the complaint of the respondents as aforesaid.

AGGRIEVED by this order of the learned District Forum, the appellants have come up before us in appeal. We have heard both the parties, perused the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum and considered the materials placed on record. We are in agreement with the findings of the learned District Forum and as such it is not necessary for us to restate the evidence or to reiterate the reasons given by the learned District Forum.

IT has been contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the PPF account scheme provides that such an account shall not be opened in the joint names and since the respondents had opened the joint account, they are not entitled to any relief. It is not in dispute that the declaration in PPF account opening applications to the effect that the account shall not be opened in joint name is not being obtained from the consumers. This provision has also not been brought to the notice of depositors even in the pass book issued by the post office. In fact, looking into the NSS Scheme, it could be logically presumed that the ban on opening the account in joint name was only meant for the administrative convenience of the Department. In this case the appellants have taken an objection that the accounts in the joint names are now permitted because the scheme envisages relief to the account holder in income-tax and the relief is not extended to two persons of one account. This objection is not maintainable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is on record of this case that Mrs. Pushpa Michael, the respondent No. 2 is a housewife who had no income of her own. Therefore, there is no question of taking double benefit by the respondents under the PPF scheme. In the present case, a joint PPF account was opened by the respondents and it has not been alleged that there was any connivance of the respondents with the employees of the appellants in opening the account. In the present administrative hierarchy, every official is supposed a discharge his duty sincerely and per the rules. Therefore, if opening of a joint account by a depositor was not permissible, the concerned Post Master should have refused to open the account. The fault lay with the employees of the appellants in not giving effect to the instructions of the department but the complainants could not be held to be deficient and they could not be refused relief; the negligence on the part of the employees of the Post Office could not be waived or ignored. The appellants have, in fact, allowed deposits and withdrawals from this account for full eleven years from 1988 to 1999 without a demeanour. The appellants have even paid interest on the balances in the joint account during these long eleven years. The payment of interest was stopped thereafter on an objection taken by the audit.

IT is also not in dispute that no efforts were made, either at the time of opening of account or soon thereafter, for the rectification of the above discrepancy. The respondents were allowed to operate the account and take benefit out of it for full eleven years.

IT is also not in dispute that the respondent has not been sent a written notice in the prescribed form indicating the irregular opening with a request to close the account and take the withdrawal payment as indicated in the departmental instructions of the appellant. IT is also not in dispute that the appellants did not close the account and did not remit the amount to the respondents by Money Order dated deducting the usual M.O. Commission. As such, the appellants have not observed the principles of natural justice in this case, have not followed their own instructions with regard to issue of notice and closure of account and have committed deficiency of service. In fact there is correspondence between the concerned Post Office and the Department of Post from 1999 to February 2001 and ultimately it was decided not to regularize the PPF account of the respondents. All this time, the respondents were not allowed to withdraw any amount from the said PPF account. As stated above, the appellants have taken an objection that the accounts in the joint names are not permitted. The first respondent in this case has even applied to the appellants that the name of his wife may kindly be deleted from the PPF account so as to meet the objection raised after 11 years of the opening of the account. This could have not only saved the embarrassment to the Government but also would lead to customer satisfaction as well. The first respondent is a retired official of Corporation who has become disabled due to a paralytic attack and the mental agony and emotional suffering of such a person who is already physically ill can be well imagined.

In our view, the whole purpose of the Consumer Protection Act would be frustrated if the consumer who had deposited a large amount of his savings, prima facie for generating income, is denied the benefit of interest after having allowed such interest during the first eleven years of the opening of the account. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent was entitled to receive interest since he was not allowed to withdraw his due amount from the PPF account and the proceeding are for recovery of the amount from the PPF account and the proceeding are for recovery of the amount and damages. It is, however, equally true that the complainant cannot be permitted to continue to maintain the deposit after the expiry of the 15 years period of the PPF scheme. This period has expired on 21.3.2003. In the fitness of things, the complainant cannot be granted the same rate of interest on his deposit after the expiry of the above period on 21.3.2003 and it would meet the ends of justice if interest @ 6% p.a. for the period from 21.3.2003 to the date of payment is given to the complainant-respondent.

IN this case, the respondents have not been able to prove the loss which is alleged to be sustained by them on account of non-payment at the time of marriage of their daughter. IN the circumstances, the award of Rs. 5,000 on this count is also not maintainable. In the above circumstances, in our considered opinion, the impugned order deserves to be modified. The appeal is, therefore, partly allowed and the impugned order is modified as follows : (1) The respondents shall not be entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 5,000 from the appellants on account of damages for not permitting withdrawal at the time of marriage of the daughter of the respondents. (2) The appellants shall pay interest @ 6% p.a. on the deposits of the respondents from 21.3.2003 till closure of the account. (3) If the appellants do not agree to delete the name of Mrs. Pushpa Michael from the joint account and do not allow the respondents to continue the PPF account, then as the 15 years period required for maintaining PPF account is over, the appellants shall be free to close the account now.

WE clarify that this judgment shall not be taken as a precedent in any other manner as the order is being passed taking into account the special features of the case. This appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed.