State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Postmaster General,Himachal ... vs Ramesh Chand Nag on 25 July, 2012
BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SOLAN, H
H.P.
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA.
First Appeal
No: 352/2010.
Date of
Decision: 25.07.2012.
1.
The
Postmaster General,
Himachal
Pradesh,
Shimla,
H.P.
2.
Superintendent
of Post Offices,
District Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P.
3.
Head
Postmaster,
Post Office Palampur,
Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra, H.P.
Appellants
Versus
Shri Ramesh Chand Nag son of Shri Hari Ram,
R/o Nag Mohalla, Ghuggar,
Tehsil Palampur, Distt. Kangra, H.P.
Respondent
Coram
Honble Mr. Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President
Honble Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Member
Honble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member.
Whether approved for reporting?[1] For the Appellants: Mr. Vijay Arora, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate O R D E R:
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) This appeal by the appellants is directed against the order dated 31.07.2010, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kangra at Dharamshala, whereby in a complaint filed against them by respondent Ramesh Chand Nag, they have been ordered to release an amount of `1,02,000/- with bonus at the rate of 10% after adjusting an amount of `8,415/- paid in excess to the respondent and have further been ordered to pay interest at the rate of 5% per annum on the aforesaid amount of money, besides being ordered to pay `5,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Respondent Ramesh Chand Nag had been in Government service and was posted at Shimla in the year 2000. On 06.11.2000, he subscribed to a monthly income scheme launched by the appellants and deposited a sum of `1,02,000/-. In terms of the scheme, he was to be paid monthly income at the rate of 12% per annum of the money invested by him. Respondent also opened a savings bank account with the appellants at Shimla and instructed them to transfer the monthly income, accruing under the aforesaid scheme, to his savings bank account. He retired from service in the year 2001 and shifted to his native place in Palampur Tehsil of Kangra district. He got the account of the aforesaid scheme and also the savings bank account transferred to Post Office, Palampur. In the year 2008, he filed a complaint alleging that though on account of the maturity of the aforesaid monthly income scheme he was entitled to the return of the money together with bonus at the rate of 10%, the appellants had withheld the money and were insisting that a sum of `8,415/- had been paid to him in excess on account of monthly income and that until he refunded that alleged excess paid amount, money due to him would not be released.
3. It was alleged that monthly income from July, 2001 to February, 2002 had not been paid to the respondent and that when he demanded that money, his signature on a voucher was obtained by making him believe that the money would be entered in his passbook and the passbook was also taken from him but later on he came to know that the appellants had fabricated their record to show that the money against the said voucher had been paid to him (the respondent) in cash. He alleged that his passbook had also not been returned despite repeated demands.
Further it was alleged that the money due to him had illegally been withheld and that he wanted to invest the money in a fixed deposit.
4. Appellants contested the complaint and took the plea that after getting his accounts transferred from Shimla to Palampur, respondent had been receiving the monthly income in cash till 31st March 2003, when he made a fresh application for depositing the amount of monthly income in his savings bank account. From April, 2003 onwards, they started crediting the amount in his savings bank account every month. It was stated that monthly income for the period from July, 2001 to February, 2002 had been paid in cash to the respondent on 25.02.2002 and that again on 07.03.2003, a sum of `19,635/- was paid to him on account of income from July, 2001 to March, 2003, though income from July, 2001 to February, 2002 stood paid to him earlier and thus there was double payment for the period from July, 2001 to February, 2002. It was stated that the respondent had been required to refund the excess amount of `,8,415/- but he refused to do so and took the false plea that he had not received double payment.
5. Learned District Forum upheld the appellants plea regarding double payment. However, learned District Forum concluded that an amount of `1,02,000/- with bonus at the rate of 10% became due to the respondent on the maturity of the scheme on 06.11.2006 and that this amount ought to have been paid by the appellants, after deducting the amount of double payment, i.e. `8,415/- and with this finding learned District Forum passed the impugned order.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
7. Respondent has not challenged the finding of the learned District Forum that this was a case of double payment of `8,415/- and the consequential implied order of dismissal of prayer for the release of the entire maturity amount, including the amount of `8,415/-. That means the finding of the learned District Forum with regard to double payment has attained finality. This finding of the learned District Forum means that the respondent made a false statement before the Forum that he had not received the amount of `8,415/- twice. Now, when the respondent was guilty of mis-representation and suppression of truth, litigation expenses ought not to have been awarded and interest at a rate higher than the savings bank account rate of interest should have also not been ordered to be paid.
8. Consequently, we allow this appeal to the extent that the order of the learned Distinct Forum is modified and the appellants are ordered to pay the money due to the respondent under the aforesaid scheme together with interest at the rate payable in respect of savings bank accounts, after deducting an amount of `8,415/- over-paid by them to the respondent. Appellants shall not be liable to pay anything on account of litigation expenses.
9. One copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Chander Shekhar Sharma) Member (Prem Chauhan) Member July 25, 2012.
*DC Dhiman* [1] Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?