National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. vs Girija Agarwal (Smt.) And Ors. on 2 January, 2007
Equivalent citations: I(2007)CPJ196(NC)
ORDER
K.S. Gupta, J. (Presiding Member)
1. Delay of 67 days in filing petition is condoned.
2. This revision is directed against the order dated 22.2.2005 of Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur dismissing appeal against the order dated 26.8.2004 of a District Forum whereby petitioners were directed to pay amount of Rs. 1,07,840 with interest @ 9% p.m. w.e.f. 26.8.2004 and compensation of Rs. 3,000, to the respondents.
3. Facts giving rise to this revision lie in narrow compass. Respondent No. 1/ complainant No. 1 is the mother of respondent Nos. 2 to 4/complainant Nos. 2 to 4. Under Monthly Income Scheme, account No. 29054 dated 6.10.1997 was jointly opened by respondent Nos. 1 and 2, account No. 29055 was jointly opened on 6.10.1997 by respondent Nos. 1 and 3, yet another account No. 29061 was opened jointly by respondent Nos. 1 and 4 on 27.10.1997 in Sub-Post Office, Sector 6, Bhilai, Durg, petitioner No. 1. Amount of Rs. 96,000 was deposited in each of these accounts. It was alleged that petitioner issued a cheque of Rs. 2,08,960 towards payment of the amount deposited in said accounts. Total amount payable was Rs. 3,16,800. Payment of Rs. 1,07,840 was, thus, made short. In the complaint, direction was sought to the petitioners to pay amount of Rs. 1,07,840 along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of payment i.e. 11.11.2003. Compensation of Rs. 10,000 was also claimed towards mental agony. The petitioners contested the complaint by filing written version. Details of seven accounts under Monthly Income Scheme jointly opened with respondent No. 1 were set out in para 3(B) as under:
----------------------------------------------------------
Amount Account Date of Name of Interest
Deposi- No. opening Depositor due per
ted of A/c month
----------------------------------------------------------
96,000 29054 6/15.10.97 Ms. Girija 1040
Km. Mukta
Agarwal
96,000 29055 6/15.10.97 Ms. Girija 1040
Shakti
Agarwal
96,000 29061 17/27.10.97 Ms. Girija 1040
Km. Sharda
Agarwal
96,000 29066 17/24.11.97 Ms. Girija 1040
Km. Bhawna
Agarwal
96,000 29080 30/12.11.97 Ms. Girija 1040
Shakti
Agarwal
96,000 29173 30.12.97/ Ms. Girija 1040
7.1.98 Km. Mukta
Agarwal
96,000 29174 20/28.8.98 Ms. Girija 1040
Shakti
Agarwal
----------------------------------------------------------
4. It was alleged that Km. Mukta Agarwal, presently aged 23 years and Shakti Agarwal, presently aged 22 years were minors at the time of opening of accounts and respondent No. 1 concealed their dates of birth in the column of the application forms at the time of opening joint accounts. Under the scheme, account can be opened only by 2/3 adult depositors. It was further alleged that total amount of the share of respondent No. 1 in seven accounts was Rs. 3,36,000 whereas she could have deposited only upto Rs. 2,04,000. Payment of interest on the amount beyond Rs. 2,04,000 to respondent No. 1 was irregular. Likewise payment of interest to Km. Mukta and Shakti Aggarwal was in violation of the scheme. Thus, payment of excess amount of interest of Rs. 1,07,840 was recovered from respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
5. We have heard Mr. Sewa Ram for petitioners and Mr. R.K. Agarwal for respondents.
6. Post Office (Monthly Income Account) Rules, 1987 were framed by Government of India under Section 15 of the Government Saving Account Act, 1873. Rule 3 of the said Rules provides for applicability of Post Office Saving Bank General Rules, 1981 and Post Office Saving Bank Account Rules, 1981 in relation to matters for which no provision has been made in Post Office (Monthly Income Account) Rules, 1987. Under Rule 4 of the Post Office Saving Bank Account Rules, 1981 a deposit account under the Post Office (Monthly Income Account) Rules, 1987 can be opened by:
(i) A single adult.
(ii) Two/three adults in joint names.
(iii) A minor who has attained the age of 10 years.
(iv) A guardian on behalf of a minor or a person of unsound mind.
7. A minor, thus, cannot open account jointly with an adult person. It is not in dispute that on the dates aforesaid account Nos. 29054, 29055, 29080, 29173 and 29174 were opened Km. Mukta Agarwal and Shakti Agarwal were minors. It was urged on behalf of petitioners that factum of both Km. Mukta and Shakti Agarwal being minors was intentionally concealed by respondent No. 1 by not showing their dates of birth in the application forms at the time of opening the said accounts. Copies of application forms filed along with revision petition fully support this submission. Aforesaid Rule 4 applicable to Monthly Income Account is Law as held by this Commission in RP No. 1020/02, KM. Singh v. Sr. Post Master, Ramesh Nagar I (2003) CPJ 167 (NC), decided on 15.11.2002. Both the minors being ineligible under law to open above five accounts jointly with their mother, respondent No. 1 were not, therefore, entitled to interest on half of the amount of their shares. Though the plea in regard to Km. Mukta Agarwal and Shakti Agarwal being not eligible to open accounts on ground of their being minors was specifically raised in the written version but was not considered either by the District Forum or the State Commission. Orders passed by Fora below, therefore, deserve to be set aside as regards payment of interest on the amounts of said two minors.
8. This brings us to yet another issue of payment of interest on the amount beyond the ceiling limit of Rs. 2,04,000 in the said accounts to respondent No. 1. Sub-rules (6), (7) and (8) of Rule 8 of aforesaid Post Office (Monthly Income Account) Rules, 1987 which have been noticed by Fora below, read thus:
(6) A Post Office shall, as soon as it comes to the notice that a deposit made under Rule 4 by a depositor exceeds the prescribed ceilings specified therein, such Post Office shall request the depositor to withdraw the excess deposit immediately.
Explanation-"Post Office" means and includes a Head or Sub-Post Office.
(7) The excess amount referred to in 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.
(8) The interest referred to in Sub-rule (7) shall be admissible from the date of deposit of the excess amount till the end of the month preceding the month in which the depositor has been requested to withdraw such excess amount in the account.
9. Under Rule 4 the maximum limit of deposit in all the accounts taken together in the name of single person is prescribed at Rs. 2.04 lakh.
10. Para No. 8 of the order of State Commission notices that in memo of appeal the petitioners have raised averment that the respondents were intimated vide registered letter dated 17.7.2003 regarding irregularity in accounts and to appear before the Post Office, Sector 6, Bhilai Nagar, Durg but no such averment appears to have been made in written version nor the said letter was filed before the District Forum or the State Commission and, so, the State Commission declined to accept the said averment. In our view, in absence of pleadings and filing of letter the State Commission had rightly discarded the said averment. At the same time the respondent No. 1 cannot feign ignorance to the said rules. The number of accounts opened and quantum of money jointly deposited therein, would show that she was well versed with the opening of monthly income accounts. Rate of interest payable under Monthly Income Scheme is higher compared to the rate under Saving Bank Account Scheme. In our view, respondent No. 1 is entitled to interest only at the rate applicable from time-to-time under the later scheme. Orders for refund passed by the Fora below seem to be at the rate applicable under Monthly Income Scheme. Orders, thus, need to be modified accordingly.
11. For the foregoing discussion, the petitioners are directed to pay interest to respondent No. 1 on excess deposit beyond Rs. 2.04 lakh at the rate applicable from time-to-time to Post Office Saving Bank Account upto the maturity period together with interest thereon at the same rate from the date of filing of complaint as ordered by the District Forum. Award of Rs. 3,000 by way of compensation towards mental agony is not justified and is, therefore, set aside. No order as to cost. Revision petition stands disposed of.