State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mr Digamber Pandarinath Khandagale And ... vs Mohone (Main) Post Office And Others on 18 September, 2012
Daily Order
BEFORE THE
HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
Complaint
Case No. CC/11/125
1. MR DIGAMBER PANDARINATH KHANDAGALE
2. SMT. SUBHADA DIGAMBER KHANDAGALE
BOTH R/AT:-
FIRST FLOORS, SAI DARSHAN
SHIVANERI MOHANE 421 102
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. THE POST MASTER
MOHONE (MAIN) POST OFFICE
NEAR N.R.C..CO. LTD., GATE
MOHANE 421 102
2. GENERAL POST OFFICE
DOMBIVLI ( MAIN)
OPP. HDFC BANK
DOMBIVLI EAST - 421 201
3. GENRAL POST OFFICE
KALYAN ( MAIN)
TILAK CHAWK (WEST)
KALYAN 421 301
4. SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICE,
CENTRAL GOVERMENT
THANE POST OFFICE, THANE
............Opp.Party(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE Mr. S.R. Khanzode PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. Narendra Kawde MEMBER PRESENT:
Adv. N. V. Sharma for the Complainants Adv. N. J. Gonsalves for the Opponents ORAL ORDER Per -
Hon'ble Mr. S. R. Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member Heard Adv. N. V. Sharma on behalf of the Complainants and Adv. N. J. Gonsalves on behalf of the Opponents.
[2] This consumer complaint pertains to alleged deficiency in service on the part of the Department of Posts for not paying interest on the deposits made by the Complainants to the extent of `6,00,000/- under the Postal Department's Monthly Income Scheme (hereinafter referred to as 'the MIS' for the sake of brevity). The relief claimed by the Complainants as per the prayer clause is compensation of `25,00,000/- and the relief claim is worded as follows:-
" a. That the Hon'ble Court be please to grant award of Rs.25 Lacks against the opponent post office for detention of complainants deposits & interests being Senior Citizens by colorization practice of opponents and without following due process of law by the opponents.
b. That by interim and ad-interim order the Opponent be ordered to pay interests of Rs.3,79,550=00, to the Senior Citizen of India being Complainants during hearing and final disposal of loan.
c. Any other and further orders as Court deem fit and proper."
[3] The Complainants have furnished particulars of these MIS deposits as per paragraph 12(a) of the complaint as under:-
"9122601198 -------- Rs.50,000/- New 9121340726 9122601212 -------- Rs.70,000/- New 9121340730 9122601837 -------- Rs.60,000/- New 9121340729 9122601967 -------- Rs.45,000/- New 9121340728 9122602059 -------- Rs.1,05,000/- New 9121340727 9122602161 -------- Rs.60,000/-
9122602510 -------- Rs.60,000/-
9122601764 --------- Rs.1,20,000/- New 9121340731 9122602620 --------- Rs.30,000/- New 9121240732"
[4] These particulars are vague and disputed by the Opponents. In paragraph 3(c) of the written version, the Opponents have furnished the details regarding deposits made by the Complainants as under:-
"
Date of Deposit MIS A/C. No. Amount Depositors name Interest pd. Up to 1 4.3.2004 9122602161 Rs.60,000/-
D. P. KHANDAGALE & S. D. KHANDAGALE March, 2004 2 18.10.2004 9122602510 Rs.60,000/-
D. P. KHANDAGALE & S. D. KHANDAGALE Dec, 2006 3 03.12.2001 9122601198 Rs.50,000/-
D. P. KHANDAGALE & S. D. KHANDAGALE Jan 2007 4 01.12.2001 9122601212 Rs.70,000/-
D. P. KHANDAGALE & S. D. KHANDAGALE Dec, 2006
5. 18.08.2003 9122601837 Rs.60,000/-
D. P.KHANDAGALE & S. D. KHANDAGALE Dec, 2006
6. 15.11.2003 9122601967 Rs.45,000/-
D. P. KHANDAGALE & S. D. KHANDAGALE Dec, 2006
7. 01.01.2004 9122602059 Rs.105000/-
D. P. KHANDAGALE & S. D. KHANDAGALE Jan, 2007
8. 13.12.2004 9122602620 Rs.30,000/-
D. P. KHANDAGALE & S. D. KHANDAGALE Nov, 2006 Total Rs.4,80,000/-
9. 07.06.2003 9122601764 Rs.1,20,000/-
D. P. KHANDAGALE Jan, 2007 "
[5] The Opponents, Department of Posts opposed the claim of the Complainants stating that deposits made by the Complainants together exceed the deposit limit under the MIS Scheme. According to the Opponents, the Complainant, Mr. D. P. Khandagale had opened eight MIS joint accounts and made an investment of an amount of `4,80,000/- and thus, the share of the Complainant, Mr. D. P. Khandagale comes to an amount of `2,40,000/-. Subsequently, the Complainant, Mr. D. P. Khandagale opened another MIS account and invested an amount of `1,20,000/-. Thus, his total investment reached to an amount of `3,60,000/-. Thus, his investment exceeds by an amount of `60,000/- of the limit which a single deposit-holder can make. The Complainant had received interest on MIS deposit on the above excess amount of `60,000/- too which is an irregular payment and, therefore, as per the scheme that excess interest paid need to be recovered/adjusted from the payment to which the Complainants would be entitled on closure of the accounts. Accounts are required to be closed since the Complainants crossed the limit of deposit. The Complainant by his declaration in Form No.SB-3 also agreed to abide by the Rules and his declaration reads as under:-
" I/WE AGREE TO ABIDE BY SUCH RULES FRAMED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AS MAY BE APPLICABLE TO THE ACCOUNTS FROM TIME TO TIME.
I/WE hereby undertake to keep balance in all my MIS accounts single or joint at any time within the limit specified in the relevant rules and also furnish on demand from the post office saving bank, particulars of all such accounts.
The above declarations are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief."
[6] In the circumstances it is submitted that since the Department of Posts had expressly requested the Complainant to visit the post-office where his MIS accounts are held and to close those accounts and receive the amounts payable to him, no deficiency in service on the part of the department could be inferred and the consumer complaint is, as such, not maintainable.
[7] In may be mentioned that the Complainant, except his verification affidavit, did not file any evidence on affidavit. Exchange of notices i.e. notice dated 30/12/2010 issued by the Complainant and reply to it by the Opponents, copies of which are on record, are not in dispute.
[8] In their notice reply the Opponents have expressly communicated to the Complainants as under:-
"It is noticed that total amount of investment by Shri. D. P. Khandagale and S. D. Khandagale jointly comes to Rs.4,80,000/-. Individual share of Shri. D. P. Khandagale is Rs.240000/- (jointly with Smt. S. D. Khandagale) + Rs.120000/- (single account) = Rs.360000/-.
At the time of opening of MIS accounts under reference limit for single account holder was Rs.300000/-. Hence Rs.60000/- exceeds limit for single holder as regards to amount invested in the name of Shri. D. P. Khandagale.
As per POSB Manual Vol-I Rule 168 (5), if a depositor has made an excess investment beyond the prescribed limit under the Post Office Monthly Income Account Scheme, the excess deposit beyond the prescribed limit will be refunded by the P.M./S.P.M. With the POSB rate of interest to the depositor. The interest already paid on the excess amount will be recovered/adjusted from the amount refunded.
Accordingly, the S.P.M. Mohane P.O. vide his letter no.SBCO Obj/MIS/Mohane dated 10.10.2009 asked Shri. D. P. Khandagale to contact at Mohane P. O. in respect of MIS account No.9122602510 & 9122602161 immediately. But account holder did not turn up at Mohane P.O. The accounts under reference will be closed as per rule.
You are requested to ask account holders to approach at Mohane P.O. and Dombivali P.O. for monthly interest due / closure of the same."
[9] It is the case of the Opponents that thereafter the Complainants did not approach the respective post-offices but preferred to file a consumer complaint. Since the Department of Posts was willing to settle the accounts of the Complainants and willing to pay whatever amount was due to the Complainants as per the Rules and the Complainants themselves failed to avail an opportunity given to them, deficiency in service on the part of the Opponents cannot be alleged within the meaning of Section-2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for the sake of brevity). Furthermore, what we find is that though the 'service provider' is the Department of Posts, notice issued by the Complainants is also replied accordingly by the Department of Posts, this consumer complaint is not filed against the Department of Posts but it is filed as against its employee, namely - The Post Master, Mohone (Main) Post Office, as the Opponent No.1; General Post Office, Dombivli (Main), as the Opponent No.2; General Post Office, Kalyan (Main), as the Opponent No.3 and Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Central Government, Thane Post Office, Thane, as the Opponent No.4. These are either offices of the Department of Posts which are not legal person within the meaning of Section-2(1)(m) of the Act and Senior Superintendent of Post Office is one of the employees of the Department of Posts and undisputedly, is not a 'service provider'.
For these reasons, we hold accordingly and pass the following order:-
ORDER Complaint stands dismissed.
In the given circumstances, both the parties to bear their own costs.
Pronounced and dictated on 18th September, 2012 [HON'BLE Mr. S.R. Khanzode] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR.
Narendra Kawde] MEMBER KVS