State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Senior Post Master, H.O. G.T.Road, ... vs Ashok Kumar Arora on 6 October, 2009
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SCO NOS.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1392 of 2007
Date of institution: 15.10.2007
Date of decision : 06 .10.2009
1. Senior Post Master, H.O. G.T.Road, Jalandhar.
2. Senior Post Master, H.O. Court Road, Amritsar
.....Appellants
Versus
1. Ashok Kumar Arora
2. Mrs.Asha Arora w/o Ashok Kumar Arora r/o 104, Ranjit Nagar, Jalandhar.
3. Mrs.Vinnie Anand d/o Ashok Kumar Arora r/o 150-A, Shanti Pura,
Jalandhar.
.....Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated 10.07.2007
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Jalandhar.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President
Lt.Col. Darshan Singh (Retd.), Member
Present:-
For the appellants : Sh.Namit Kumar, Advocate
For the respondent : Sh.Ashok Kumar Arora in person
JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT
The respondents had opened 9 joint accounts under the Post Office (Monthly Income Scheme) Rules, 1987. They were entitled to the interest and bonus as permissible under these rules but the appellants failed to make the payment. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellants, the respondent filed the complaint against them in the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (in short "the District Forum") seeking direction against the appellants to make the payment of the principal amount with First Appeal No.1392 of 2007 2 interest and bonus as agreed by them. Compensation, interest and costs were also prayed.
2. The appellants filed the written reply. All other facts were admitted. It was, however, pleaded that under this scheme, a person could deposit an amount upto Rs.3 lacs in the individual account and Rs.6 lacs in the joint account but in the present case, the respondents had opened 9 joint accounts of Rs.1 lac each under the MIS scheme. Therefore, they had deposited excess amount against the permissible limits and, therefore, they were not entitled to any interest/bonus on the amount exceeding Rs.6 lacs. Hence, dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
3. Parties produced the affidavits/documents in support of their respective versions.
4. The learned District Forum considered the matter and accepted the complaint vide impugned order dated 10.07.2007 with costs of Rs.5000/- and directed the appellants not to close any account and not to deduct any interest paid on the plea of excess payment. The appellants were also directed to refund the total amount with agreed rate of interest.
5. Hence, the appeal.
6. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants was that the appeal be accepted and the impugned judgment dated 10.07.2007 be set aside.
7. On the other hand, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents was that there is no merit in the present appeal and the same be dismissed.
8. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
9. The investors had committed negligence in depositing the amount in the MIS account over and above Rs.6 lacs in the joint account when it was clearly prohibited by the rules. The appellants were also negligent in accepting the money in violation of the rules and retaining the same for such a long time.
10. Some judgments are in favour of the appellants and some judgments are against the appellants.
First Appeal No.1392 of 2007 3
11. Since the Consumer Fora under the Consumer Protection Act are justice-oriented Courts shorn of all technicalities, therefore, the Hon'ble National Commission in the judgment dated 01.09.2009 passed in Revision Petition No.2180 of 2004 "Senior Post Master v. Arvind Industries" was pleased to strike a balance between the two extreme views, on the basis of equitable justice. Neither the interest was paid which was permissible at the KVPs rate nor it was paid at the saving bank rate which the respondents offered. The Hon'ble National Commission had granted interest @ 6% p.a. on the amount from the date of deposit till the date of payment by observing as under : -
"We agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Kisan Vikas Patras could not be purchased in the name of HUF and that, the purchase of the Kisan Vikas Patras by the respondent was irregular. The respondent would not be entitled to get Rs.1,60,000/- on maturity. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has kept the money deposited by the respondent and utilized it for all this period in equity, we direct the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.80,000/- which was deposited by the respondent, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, as has been held in consultation with Government of India in certain other cases, from the date of deposit till the amount is/was paid to the respondent."
12. Keeping in view the discussions held above, this appeal is partly accepted and the respondents are held entitled to interest @ 6% p.a. on the amount of Rs.2 lacs deposited over and above Rs.6 lacs by the respondents in the MIS accounts from the date of deposit till the date of payment. The appellants are also entitled to close the account of the respondents.
First Appeal No.1392 of 2007 4
13. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount of Rs.25,000/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellants.
14. The interest on the amount of Rs.25,000/- shall stop running with effect from the date the appellants had deposited the same in this Commission. Interest on this amount of Rs.25,000/- shall be what has accrued on this amount when it remained deposited by this Commission in the Bank.
15. Remaining amount shall be paid by the appellants to the respondent within a period of two months after the receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the appellants will also be liable to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation/costs to the respondent.
16. The arguments were heard in this case on 29.09.2009 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
17. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL) PRESIDENT (LT. COL. DARSHAN SINGH-RETD.) MEMBER October 06 , 2009.
Paritosh