State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Senior Post Master, vs Sunil Kuamar Agrawal on 29 July, 2009
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: ORISSA: CUTTACK FIRST APPEAL NOs. 837 & 883 Of 2008 From an Order dated 17.9.2008 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cuttack in C.C. No. 636 of 2007. In First Appeal No. 837 of 2008 The Senior Post Master, Cuttack G.P.O., Cuttack. Appellant. - Versus Sunil Kuamar Agrawal, S/o Late Sampatarai Agrawal, At : Piligrim Road, College Square, Cuttack. Respondent. For the Appellant : Mr. R.C.Swain, A. C. G. S. C. For the Respondent : M/s S.C.Lal & Associates. In First Appeal No. 883 of 2008 Sri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, S/o Late Sampatrai Agrawal, Resident of Pilgrim Road, College Square, Cuttack. Appellant. - Versus The Senior Post Master, Cuttack G.P.O., Cuttack. . Respondent For the Appellant : M/s S.C.Lal & Associates. For the Respondent : Mr. R.C.Swain, A. C. G. S. C. P R E S E N T: THE HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE A.K.SAMANTARAY, PRESIDENT, SHRI SUBASH MAHTAB, MEMBER.
AND SMT.
BASANTI DEVI, MEMBER.
O R D E R DATE : The 29th July, 2009.
Smt. Basanti Devi, Member Being aggrieved against the order dated 17.9.2008 of the District Forum, Cuttack in C.C.No. 636 of 2007 the opposite party, viz., the Senior Postmaster, Cuttack G.P.O., Cuttack has filed the above mentioned First Appeal No. 837 of 2008 praying to set aside said order of the District Forum directing him to release the benefits in favour of the complainant/respondent and to dismiss the C.C.Case. The complainant has filed the aforesaid First Appeal No. 883 of 2008 for modification of the impugned orders and for a direction to the opposite party/respondent to pay him the full amount of accrued interest on the excess amount of deposits till the date of refund, besides 7% interest over the amount refunded from the date of refund to the date of actual payment.
2. Both the appeals were heard by us one after the other in one day as it arose out of a common order. Therefore, a common order is being passed.
3. Facts out of which these appeals arose in brief are that admittedly two Public Provident Funds, in short P.P.F., accounts, each with initial deposit of Rs. 50,000/- vided P.P.F. account Nos 638 and 639 in the name of minor daughter Abantika Agrawal and minor son Yash Agrawal of Sunil Kumar Agrawal, respectively, in the Cuttack G.P.O. were opened. The deposits were made on different dates in the said accounts during the years from 1999 to 2006. Undisputedly, the said accounts were opened as per the provision of paragraph 3 (1) of The Public Provident Fund Scheme, 1968 in view of section 4 of The Public Provident Fund Act, 1968. Paragraph 3 (1) of the Public Provident Fund Scheme, 1968, in short, the P.P.F. Scheme, is as follows:-
3. Limit of Subscription - (1) Any individual may, on his own behalf or on behalf of a minor of whom he is the guardian, subscribe to the Public Provident Fund ( thereafter referred to as the Fund) any amount not les than Rs. 100/- and not more than Rs. 60,000/- in a year.
An amendment in respect to ceiling on deposits under this paragraph in a financial year to the effect of not less than Rs.500/- and not more than Rs. 70,000/- w.e.f.15.11.2002 has been brought into operation (notification xerox copy R/4). Thus the ceiling on deposits in a financial year is Rs.70,000/- instead of Rs.60,000/- w.e.f. 15.11.2002.
4. According to the complainant, though in view of said para 3 (1) of the P.P.F.Scheme, Abantikas account has been opened and is also being operated independently by his wife Smt. Manisa Agrawal and Yashs account has been opened out of his own funds and is also being operated independently yet opposite party treated both the accounts have been opened and being operated as one by him as the father guardian of both the minor account holders. Of course, inadvertently, both minors have been shown as being represented by their father guardian, the complainant. But, instead of treating both said accounts as independent to each other, unfortunately opposite party, in short, the Opp. issued him a letter No.AI-113 (B ) dated 27.2.2007 ( Annexure 2 ) calling upon him to produce the respective pass books in respect to account Nos. 638 and 639 for necessary adjustment of irregularity credited interest Rs.1,35,965/- over the excess amount deposited beyond the prescribed limit in both the P.P.F.accounts. It is stated therein that Rs. 1,60,000/- and Rs. 2,05,000/- have been deposited in excess of the permissible limit in account Nos. 638 and 639 respectively. The opp. Also refunded to the complainant aforesaid excess amount of deposit in total Rs. 3,65,000/- on 23.2.2007 in view of an audit report, after adjusting the excess interest amount of Rs. 1,35,965/-, which the minors are entitled to. But, while opening the accounts and receiving the amounts, the opp. has never objected regarding irregular excess deposits for about 7 years whereas went on crediting interest on such deposits until aforesaid action followed after issuing the letter dated 27.2.2007. Therefore, opp. is estopped to adjust the accrued interest and return the excess amount of deposit. Had opp. pointed out this earlier, the minors, complainant and his wife would not have suffered from future financial loss and mental agony. Thus alleging deficiency in service against the opp., complainant had filed C.C.Case praying to direct the opp. to credit aforesaid amount of interest in both the accounts as before treating said accounts as independent and to continue crediting interest in respect to both the accounts till P.P.F. deposits would continue and to pay cost of litigation.
5. The opp. as per his written version has stated that the complainant as the father guardian of minors Abantika and Yash has made the initial deposits and opened both accounts. He was going on making deposits in both accounts during the years 1999-2006 as per the description in para 3 of the written version. He was also operating the accounts. But, complainant was not adhering to the limits of deposits as per para 3 ( 1 ) of the P.P.F.Scheme though he was aware about the limit of deposit under the Scheme and has declared as per R-1 ( xerox copy two in numbers ) to agree to abide provisions of P.P.F.Scheme. R-1 are applications for opening of account. The Counter Assistant has lost sight of this on good faith as he was remaining too busy maximum number of accounts per day being opened. Cuttack G.P.O. in its audit scrutiny (Annex. R/5) has pointed out that the complainant for self and for his aforesaid minor children as guardian, has deposited money exceeding maximum permissible limit. Thus, according to the opp. in view of said audit objection the deposits made under said accounts were reviewed and finding irregularities in crediting interest of Rs. 1,35,965/- on the excess amount of deposit Rs. 1,60,000/- and Rs. 2,05,000/- under account Nos. 638 and 639 respectively in total Rs. 3,65,000/-, aforesaid letter dated 27.2.2007 was issued and after adjustment of interest said excess amount of Rs. 3,65,000/- has been returned to the complainant : Manisa Agrawal as the mother guardian of Abantika has never opened and operated account No. 638 independently. Opp. has also challenged the maintainability of the C.D.Case on the ground that complainant is not a consumer and Postal authority is exempted from all proceeding viz. judicial and non-judicial since the act as alleged, has been done on sheer good faith and opp. has caused no deficiency in service to the complainant. Accordingly, the opp./appellant has appealed to the Consumer Fora to dismiss the C.C.Case.
6. Vide aforesaid order dated 17.9.2008, the District Forum has held opp. to have caused deficiency in service to the complainant in accepting excess amount towards P.P.Fund for long 7 years. Accordingly, District Forum directed opp. to pay interest @7% per annum over the amount refunded to the complainant from the date of refund to the date of actual payment.
7. As we have taken up both the appeals to be disposed of in one order, the following points emerge for our consideration in view of the respective case of the parties and ground taken by them to be successful in the respective appeals.
(a) Whether the C.C.Case is maintainable in view of the ground taken by the Senior Postmaster, Cuttack, G.P.O.,
(b) Whether said Senior Postmaster has caused deficiency in service to Sri Sunil Kumar Agrawal the complainant.
( c ) Whether opp.or the complainant are entitled to succeed in their respective appeals.
8. Coming to the aforesaid point (a ) and ( b ), we are to see whether complainant is a consumer relating to the accounts in question through opp. Senior Postmaster and the opp./Senior Postmaster has been protected in view of sec.10 of the P.P.F.Act, 1968 from all sorts of judicial and non-judicial proceeding having caused wrong on good faith.
9. In this regard, it may be said that the P.P.F. Scheme has been established by the Central Government for the interest of the public. Therefore, the moment a public subscribe to the Public Provident Fund an amount as per the permissible limit of the P.P.F.Scheme, duty is cast on the designated authority or any other officer authorized by the Central Government to receive such subscription and to render proper service to such subscriber. Where there is deficiency in service. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in short the C.P.Act, shall come into operation to provide adequate relief to the sufferer. In view of Section 3 of the C.P.Act, remedies under this Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. In this end of the view, in case the Senior Postmaster would be found out to have caused deficiency in service by negligence in not providing proper service to the subscriber, the complainant, he cant be protected u/s 10 of P.P.F.Act. 1968. After all good faith is to be proved by the wrong doer which has not been done by the opp. here. In this case, opp. - the Senior Postmaster of G.P.O., which is a Post Office Savings Bank, has not rendered proper service to the complainant/ subscriber of a Public Provident Fund. Therefore, he has caused deficiency in service to the subscriber. It has been rightly held by the District Forum that the aforesaid two accounts are not independent to each other which have been opened and were being managed by the father guardian, the complainant. He was also making periodical deposits in said accounts. Opp. has given a chart of deposit made in both the accounts during 1999 to 2006 in para 3 of the written version. Complainant does not dispute deposits shown in the chart. It is seen from said chart that excess amount of money in violation of the ceiling prescribed in para 3 (1) of the P.P.F. Scheme have been deposited in both the accounts of the minors in the financial years 1999-2000 and during financial years 2004-2006. When in view of this para 3 (1) of the P.P.F. Scheme an individual can only subscribe to the P.P.F. on his own behalf or on behalf of a minor of whom he is a guardian any amount not less than Rs. 100/- and not more than Rs. 60,000/- in a year in view of pre-amended para 3 ( 1 ) of the P.P.F.Scheme and after amendment of said para 3 ( 1 ) as mentioned earlier not less than Rs. 500/- and not more than Rs. 70,000/- w.e.f. 15.11.2002, the opp. went on receiving excess deposits of Rs.1,60,000/- in Account No. 638 and Rs. 2,05,000/- in account No. 639 in total Rs. 3,65,000/- for a long period of seven (7 ) years, till it was detected during audit inspection only. Till then, opp. was going on calculating interest on the excess amount of deposit and was crediting. This is a glare example of sheer negligence and carelessness on the part of the opp. in maintaining and handling the deposit made by the subscriber. The authorized authority of G.P.O. is expected to be more responsible than the subscriber of the P.P.F.Scheme in respect to the deposits made even though the subscriber has agreed to abide all the provisions of P.P.F. Scheme. Here for a petty long 7 years opp. has not taken care of the deposits made under the aforesaid two accounts for which complainant could go on making deposit during 1999-2006 amount, exceeding the prescribed upper limit of deposit. The opp. was also going on calculating interest on said excess amount of deposit and was crediting to the account for such a long period. But ultimately the complainant has been deprived of the amount of interest. This is nothing but serious negligence of the opp. in providing due service amounting to deficiency in service to the complainant. This is how the complainant has been put to heavy financial loss for unnecessary stagnation of his own money. Therefore, we find no reason to dismiss the C.C.Case and feel that the F.A.No. 837 of 2008 is devoid of merit.
10. Coming to aforesaid point ( c ), the F.A.No. 837 of 2008 merits no consideration and is to be dismissed. The complainant/appellant of F.A.No. 883 of 2008, no doubt, has prayed in this appeal for a direction to the opp./respondent, to pay him the full amount of accrued interest on the excess amount of deposits till the date of refund besides the interest @ 7% per annum as is awarded by the District Forum vide orders dated 17.9.2008.It has been decided in a case in between State Bank of India vs B.V.Ramana Murthy, reported in AIR 2008 (NOC) 394 (NCC) that refusal to pay interest on deposits made in PPF account of a subscriber/customer on ground that the deposits made was in excess of the ceiling prescribed in scheme is deficiency in service. Therefore, it was held in the said decision that once the Bank accepted the deposits made in excess of ceiling prescribed, the Bank would be liable to pay interest on such deposits. This principle is applicable to the present case. In the present case, admittedly, the excess amount of deposit under the said two accounts are Rs. 3,65,000/- though has been refunded to the complainant on 23.2.2007 yet no interest accrued thereon during said period of 7 years have been given to the complainant. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to get interest on said amount of excess deposit. But as the complainant was not very much careful while making deposits in the said P.P.F. accounts as a result of which there has been excess amount of deposit beyond the ceiling prescribed under paragraph 3 (1 ) of the P.P.F.Scheme, we are not inclined to award interest more than the rate of 7% per annum. Therefore, the complainant would only get interest @ 7% per annum from the dates of excess amount of deposit totally amounting to Rs. 3,65,000/- till the date of refund besides the award of interest made by the District Forum, Cutttack.
11. In the result, the F.A. No. 837 of 2008 is dismissed without cost having no merit. F.A.No. 883 of 2008 is allowed in part with the observations made above without any costs, taking into consideration the nature of the dispute. In view of the analysis made above, the opp. in C.C.Case no. 636 of 2007, who is the appellant in F.A.No. 837 of 2008 and respondent in F.A.No. 883 of 2008 is hereby directed in modification to the impugned order of the District Forum, Cuttack dated 17.9.2008 to pay interest @ 7% per annum on the excess amount of deposit viz. Rs. 3,65,000/- from the respective dates of the periodical deposits till actual date of payment within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the interest portion shall carry 9% interest..
.
(Basanti Devi) Member (Justice A.K.Samantaray) President .
(Subash Mahtab) Member SCDRC,Orissa, Cuttack Date: 29.7.2009/bkm