State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt. Kalia Patro vs Manoj Kumar Patro, on 6 October, 2009
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: ORISSA: CUTTACK
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: ORISSA: CUTTACK
C.D. APPEAL NO. 196 OF 2005
From an order dated 27.12.2004 passed in C.D.Case no. 52 of 2004 by the District Forum, Koraput at Jeypore.
The Post Master,
Sunabeda-2.
. Appellant.
- Versus -
1. Smt. Kalia Patro,
Qtr. No.RA/504,
Hal Township, Sunabeda-2,
Dist. Koraput.
Substituted by
1.(a) Manoj Kumar Patro,
Qr.No.RA-504, HAL Township,
Sunabeda-2.
2.(b) Smt. Purnabasi Patro
3.(c) Smt. Mini Kumari Patro
4.(d) Smt. Jhuni Kumari Patro
5.(e) Mamita Kumari Patro
Respondents
For the appellant : Mr. R.C.Swain, A.S.C
For respondents : M/s M.K.Khuntia & Associates.
PRESENT:
THE HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE A.K.SAMANTARAY, PRESIDENT,
SHRI SUBASH MAHTAB, MEMBER,
AND
SHRIMATI BASANTI DEVI, MEMBER
O R D E R
D ATE : The 06th October, 2009 The opposite party no.1 of C.D.Case no. 52 of 2004 has filed this appeal against the complainant Smt. Kalia Patro challenging the order dated 27.12.2004 of the District Forum, Koraput at Jeypore.
2. We have heard the learned counsels appearing for both sides and perused the materials available in the record.
3. The case of the complainant for which she filed the C.D.Case in brief is that, through an agent of the Post Master, Sunabeda-2, opp.no. 2, she opened single Account no. 75069 for Rs.2.04 lakhs under the Monthly Income Scheme, in short, the MIS, on 4.8.1998 at Sunabeda Post Office and on 11.8.1998, she jointly with her son Manoj Kumar Patro, opened Account No. 70572 for Rs.1,02,000/- under MIS in the same Post Office. She was paid interest at MIS rate on the said accounts till May, 2004. But, when the Postal Auditor declared during audit that complainant has committed irregularity by making investment of Rs.51,000/- which is her half share in the joint MIS account viz. No. 70572 after exhausting her maximum limit viz. Rs. 2.04 lakhs in the single account, opp.no. 1 stopped payment MIS rate of interest from June, 2004 when this account was due to mature on 11.8.2004 and asked her to refund excess MIS rate of interest Rs.26,116/- already paid to her. The amount deposited is her only source of income. Opp.no. 1 in this way has put her into harassment and inconvenience. Therefore, she filed the C.D.Case to direct opposite parties to pay her MIS rate of interest, maturity value and cost and compensation Rs.10,000/-.
4. Opp.no. 2 has denies his responsibility in the matter and did not agree to compensate the loss if any of complainant, he having caused no deficiency in service, in his written version. The Postal Authority has paid MIS rate of interest till May, 2004. He claims not to have neglected to perform his part of duty as a Postal Agent.
5. Opposite party no. 1, has admitted about opening of aforesaid two MIS accounts and the amount deposited thereon as per his written statement. His case in brief is that as per Rule-4 of MIS Rules, 1987 complainant is authorized to deposit Rs.2.04 lakhs in single account and is entitled to get MIS rate of interest. But, few days after viz. on 11.8.1998, she deposited Rs. 1.02 lakhs in joint MIS account no. 70572 along with Manoj Kumar Patro thereby exceeded the limit of investment by Rs.51,000/-, which is her share in the joint account. But interest at MIS rate of interest has been given in both accounts in respect to this irregular excess investment, she is not entitled to MIS rate of interest but only S.B.rate of interest. Though inadvertently she has been allowed MIS rate of interest in respect to aforesaid excess deposit in the joint account up to April, 2004, yet she is not entitled to MIS rate of interest in view of the provision in the MIS Rules, 1998. After deposit of excess amount of Rs.51,000/- in said joint account was detected during Postal Audit, opp.no. 1 stopped payment of MIS rate of interest in respect to MIS account no. 70572 w.e.f. May, 2004 asking complainant to refund MIS rate of interest Rs.26,116/- already paid over said amount Rs.51,000/- after making deduction of S.B. rate of interest in view of the provisions in Post Office Savings Bank Act,. 1873 and various Rules and MIS Rules, 1987. Thus, opp.no.1 denies any responsibility to make good the loss claimed by the complainant and challenges the maintainability of the C.D.Case.
6. Vide impugned order dated 27.12.2004, the District Forum held that there will be no irregularity in extending the benefit of this Scheme in favour of the complainant treating the entire investment as joint investment and directed opp.no. 1 to release the benefit in favour of the complainant from May, 2004 on the ground that both account holders belongs to one and a joint family and the total amount of deposit viz. Rs.3,06,000/- is just above the single account and much low of the amount limit covered in joint account prior to 1.2.2000 and the period of irregularity is only 1 year and 6 months.
7. The appellant has challenged the said order of the District Forum as palpably a wrong order because in view of Rule 9 of the MIS Rules, 1987, the complainant has exceeded the limit of deposit viz. Rs. 2.04 lakhs.
8. We went through the pleadings of the parties and appeal memo as well as the Post Office (Monthly Income Account) Rules, 1987 vide G.S.R.701 ( E ) of the Central Government and Monthly Income Account Scheme Rules, 1987, whose xerox copies are available in the record. It is pertinent to quote here Rule 4 made by the Central Government Notification GSR 701 ( E ).
"Rule 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."
In view of MOF (DEA) Notification No. GSR 80 (E) dated 1.2.2000, effective from 1.2.2000 -
"Note: - For the purpose of maximum balance, the depositors share in the balance of a joint account shall be taken as one half or one third of such balance according as the account is held by two adults or three adults.
Vide MOF (DEA) Notification No. GSR 706 (E) Dated 5.9.2000 "Classification: - The above Note is effective from 5.9.2000. However, it may be added here that this provision in the shape of a Note incorporated in Monthly Income Account Scheme Rules, 1987 was already in existence indirectly through Rule 3 of Monthly Income Account Scheme Rules, 1987 read with Note 1 below Rule 4 of Post Office Savings Account Rules, 1981 and a clarification to this effect was also circulated vide Directorate letter No. 97-19/96-SB dated 27.12.1996."
Order No. 9 relates to "Limit for MIS deposits clarification" which is covered under D.G.Posts Letter No. 97-19/86-SB 27.12.1996. In view of this order No. 9 ( 2 ) " Rule 4 of MIS Rules, 1987 provides that 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 Rs. 2.04 lakhs in single account and Rs. 4.08 lakhs in joint account. ( This limit has been increased to 3 lakhs in single account and Rs. 6 lakhs in joint account w.e.f. 1.2.2000. "
Order 9 ( 3 ) provides that "Rule 3 of MIS Rules, 1987 which provides for applicability of P.O.S.B. General Rules, 1981 and the Post Office Savings Account Rules, 1981 for which no provision has been made in MIS Rules."
Order 9 ( 4 ) provides that " In view of above, it is clarified that the deposits held by an individual in his/her single account together with his/her share in joint accounts should not exceed the prescribed limit of Rs. 2.04 lakhs ( Rs. 3 lakhs w.e.f. 1.2.2000) under Monthly Income Scheme. "
Thus in view of these rules and order a deposit made by an individual in his/her single account together with his/her share in joint accounts before 1.2.2000 should not exceed the prescribed limit of Rs.2.04 lakhs.
9. In the present case, the complainant made deposit of Rs.2.04 lakhs in her single MIS account on 4.8.1998 and she and her son Manoj made deposit of Rs. 1.02 lakhs in joint account on 11.8.1998. In the joint account complainants share being Rs.51,000/-, complainant has made excess deposit of Rs. 51,000/-. This is how she has exceeded the limit of deposit. The limit of deposit in the present case is Rs.2.04 lakhs in view of order 9 ( 4). Consequence of excess deposit has been set at rest in view of Sub Rules 6 and 7 vide G.S.R. 350 (E) dated 10.5.2002. Said Sub Rule 6 provides that soon after a Post Office comes to know that a deposit has exceeded the prescribed limit, the Post Office shall request the depositor to withdraw the excess deposit immediately. Sub Rule 7 provides that the excess amount deposited as referred to sub-rule 6 shall carry an interest at the rate applicable from time to time to the Post Office Savings Account and shall be payable to such depositor on such amount.
10. Here, the concerned Post Office/appellant has rightly requested the complainant to withdraw said excess amount of deposit viz. Rs.51,000/-, to refund Rs.26,116/- already paid towards MIS rate of interest and has offered only interest at the rate of Post Office Savings Account. In view of the provision of Postal Law and MIS Rules complainant has no alternative than to act according to the request of the Post Master/appellant by withdrawing Rs.51,000/- from said joint account and to accept interest at the rate of the Post Office Savings Account. In these end of the view, complainant had no case against the appellant/ opposite parties and the C.D.Case had been filed due to misconception of facts and Postal Law, regulations and MIS rules. Thus, we find there was no merit in the C.D.Case.
11. In the result, the appeal is allowed on contest without cost. The impugned order dated 27.12.2004 of the District Forum, Koraput at Jeypore in C.D.Case no. 52 of 2004 is set aside and the C.D.Case stands dismissed.
Send back the L.C.R. to the District Forum, Koraput at Jeypore immediately.
.
(Basanti Devi)
Member
(Justice A.K.Samantaray)
President
.. (Subash Mahtab)
SCDRC, Orissa, Cuttack Member
October 06, 2009. /bkm