State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shri. Sampat Madhavrao Patil vs The Sub Post Master (H.S.G.I.) on 19 December, 2011
C/113/2007
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA,
MUMBAI
First Appeal No. A/06/889
(Arisen out of Order Dated 31/03/2006 in Case
No. 178/2005 of District Nashik)
1. Shri. Sampat
Madhavrao Patil
R/o. Flat No. 6, Arihant Building, IIIrd floor, Saubhagya
Nagar, Gangapur Road,
Nashik - 422 005.
Maharashtra
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. The Sub Post
Master (H.S.G.I.)
Gole Colony,Post
Office, Nashik,
Maharashtra
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Hon'ble Mr. P.N.
Kashalkar PRESIDING MEMBER
Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode Judicial Member Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kawde MEMBER PRESENT:
None present.
O R D E R Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar Honble Presiding Judicial Member:(1)
This appeal has been filed in 2006 and since then it has been lying unattended. Last roznama says that appeal was on board for hearing on 16.05.2006. It was admitted and adjourned for hearing to 17.10.2007 and since then this appeal is lying unattended. As per policy of this Commission this unattended appeal was placed before us for disposal for the first time on 29th September, 2011. The appeal was displayed on the notice board of this Commission and also published on the internet. On 29th September, 2011 on finding that both the parties were absent we had directed office to send intimation letter by ordinary post to both the parties and matter was adjourned for today. Accordingly on 29.11.2011 office has sent notice to both the parties by ordinary post. Despite notice both the parties are absent. Hence, we have decided to dispose of this appeal on merit.(2)
The Appellant is the Complainant who had filed Consumer Complaint No.178/2005. He had filed consumer complaint against Sub-Post Master (H.S.G.I.), Gole Colony Post Office, Nashik. He pleaded that he had opened in Sangli Post Office one Saving Bank Account No.12009 on 21.03.1990 and on 16.03.1991 they opened another Saving Bank Account No.1313865 at Aurangabad Post Office. He claimed that he was not knowing that two accounts could not be opened in post office. He then got both accounts transferred at Gole Colony Post office at Nashik. When he asked for closure of one of the accounts and requested post office to give refund of the amount shown as balance in one of the accounts he was closing. He was not given interest on one account but he was given interest on another account. Hence, he filed consumer complaint claiming interest @18% per annum. He also claimed `10,000/- as costs.
(3)Opponent filed written version and disputed the claim made by the Complainant. According to Opponent under the National Saving Scheme 1987, a person is not entitled to open more than one account whereas in suppression of the Rule 4 of the National Saving Scheme, 1987 Complainant had opened two accounts, one at Sangli and another at Aurangabad by giving false declaration by violating Rule No.8 and hence, Opponent/Respondent pleaded that the action they had taken was proper and there was no deficiency in service on its part.
(4)The District Forum after considering the affidavits and documents placed on record held that while opening Account No.1313865 under National Savings Scheme 1987 he had mentioned that he was not knowing Rule 4. However, Post office in the course of evidence adduced declaration signed by the Complainant mentioning that he had read the National Saving Scheme Rules in toto and therefore, the District Forum held that opening of the second account when he was having first account was illegal, improper and in violation of Rule 4 and Rule 8 of the National Saving Scheme, 1987 and therefore, the Post office was not liable to pay interest on the second account and the District Forum was pleased to dismiss the complaint and awarded costs of `500/- to the Opponent for filing frivolous complaint. Aggrieved by the said order the original Complainant has filed this appeal.
(5)On perusal of the impugned order passed by the District Forum dismissing the appeal we are finding that the order passed by the District Forum is just and proper as Complainant had violated the rules of National Saving Scheme 1987. He had opened second account suppressing the fact that he had opened his first account.
Fortunately for the Respondent he had two accounts at Nashik for the first time and these accounts came to the notice of post office and then post office refused to pay interest on one of the accounts as per rules in force. Therefore, the District forum was of the opinion that there was no merit in the complaint filed by the original Complainant. Hence, we are finding that the order passed by the district Forum dismissing the complaint by imposing costs of `500/- is just and proper and it does not call for any interference by this Commission. Hence, we pass the following order:
O R D E R
(i) Appeal is dismissed.
(ii) No order as to costs.
(iii) Inform the parties accordingly.
Pronounced on 19th December, 2011.
[Hon'ble Mr. P.N. Kashalkar] PRESIDING MEMBER [Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode] Judicial Member [Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kawde] MEMBER ep