State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Union Of India vs Sanjay Goyal on 21 July, 2015
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1279 of 2012
Date of Institution: 27.09.2012
Date of Decision: 21.07.2015.
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of
Communication and Postage, Ashoka Road, New Delhi.
2. Superintendent, Post Office Sangrur, Sangrur.
3. Sub Post Master, Sub Post Office, Sadar Bazar, Malerkotla.
.....Appellants/opposite parties
Versus
Sanjay Goyal S/o Late Sh. K.K. Goyal, R/o Goyal Cottage, Inside
Delhi Gate, Malerkotla.
.....Respondent/complainant
Present:-
For the appellants : Sh. R.P. Singh, Advocate.
For the respondent : Sh. G.S. Jagpal, Advocate
First appeal against order dated
06.08.2012 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Sangrur.
2) First Appeal No.1280 of 2012
Date of Institution: 27.09.2012
Date of Decision : 21.07.2015
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of
Communication and Postage, Ashoka Road, New Delhi.
2. Superintendent, Post Office Sangrur, Sangrur.
3. Sub Post Master, Sub Post Office, Sadar Bazar, Malerkotla.
.....Appellants/opposite parties
Versus
First Appeal No. 1279 of 2012 2
Ajay Kumar Goyal S/o Late Sh. K.K. Goyal, R/o Goyal Cottage,
Inside Delhi Gate, Malerkotla.
.....Respondent/complainant
Present:-
For the appellants : Sh. R.P. Singh, Advocate.
For the respondent : Sh. G.S. Jagpal, Advocate
First appeal against order dated
06.08.2012 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Sangrur.
3) First Appeal No.1281 of 2012
Date of Institution: 27.09.2012
Date of Decision : 21.07.2015
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of
Communication and Postage, Ashoka Road, New Delhi.
2. Superintendent, Post Office Sangrur, Sangrur.
3. Sub Post Master, Sub Post Office, Sadar Bazar, Malerkotla.
.....Appellants/opposite parties
Versus
Anil Kumar Goyal S/o Late Sh. K.K. Goyal, R/o Goyal Cottage,
Inside Delhi Gate, Malerkotla.
.....Respondent/complainant
Present:-
For the appellants : Sh. R.P. Singh, Advocate.
For the respondent : Sh. G.S. Jagpal, Advocate
First appeal against order dated
06.08.2012 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Sangrur.
4) First Appeal No.1282 of 2012
Date of Institution: 27.09.2012
Date of Decision : 21.07.2015
First Appeal No. 1279 of 2012 3
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of
Communication and Postage, Ashoka Road, New Delhi.
2. Superintendent, Post Office Sangrur, Sangrur.
3. Sub Post Master, Sub Post Office, Sadar Bazar, Malerkotla.
.....Appellants/opposite parties
Versus
Anil Kumar Goyal S/o Late Sh. K.K. Goyal, R/o Goyal Cottage,
Inside Delhi Gate, Malerkotla.
.....Respondent/complainant
Present:-
For the appellants : Sh. R.P. Singh, Advocate.
For the respondent : Sh. G.S. Jagpal, Advocate
First appeal against order dated
06.08.2012 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Sangrur.
AND
5) First Appeal No.1283 of 2012
Date of Institution: 27.09.2012
Date of Decision : 21.07.2015
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of
Communication and Postage, Ashoka Road, New Delhi.
2. Superintendent, Post Office Sangrur, Sangrur.
3. Sub Post Master, Sub Post Office, Sadar Bazar, Malerkotla.
.....Appellants/opposite parties
Versus
Deepak Kumar Goyal S/o Late Sh. K.K. Goyal, R/o Goyal Cottage,
Inside Delhi Gate, Malerkotla.
.....Respondent/complainant
Present:-
For the appellants : Sh. R.P. Singh, Advocate.
For the respondent : Sh. G.S. Jagpal, Advocate
First Appeal No. 1279 of 2012 4
First appeal against order dated 06.08.2012
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sangrur.
Quorum:-
Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri H.S. Guram, Member.
.............................................. J. S. KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
The appellants of the above referred appeals (the opposite parties in the complaint) have directed the above referred appeals against the respondents (the complainants in the complaints respectively), assailing orders of District Forum Sangrur dated 06.08.2012 , accepting the complaints and awarding compensation against the appellants, as detailed in the orders.
2. We intend to dispose of the above referred five appeals by this common order on account of identical questions of facts and law involved in them. The order will be pronounced by us in main first appeal no.1279 of 2012.
First appeal no.1279 of 2012
3. Complainant Sanjay Goyal has filed the consumer complaint no.15 of 2012 under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short "Act") against the OPs on the averments that he purchased eight National Saving Certificates (NSCs) in the denomination of Rs.10,000/- each, as Karta of Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) from OP no.3. The details of the NSCs are re-produced as under:
Sr. Post NSC Date of Amount Date of Amount No. Office number purchase Rupees Maturity Rupees First Appeal No. 1279 of 2012 5 1. 70EE79 29.03.2006 10,000/- 29.03.2012 16,010/- 2209 2. 70EE79 29.03.2006 10,000/- 29.03.2012 16,010/- 2210 3. 70EE79 29.03.2006 10,000/- 29.03.2012 16,010/- 2211 4. 70EE79 29.03.2006 10,000/- 29.03.2012 16,010/- 2206 5. 70EE79 29.03.2006 10,000/- 29.03.2012 16,010/- 2207 6. 70EE79 29.03.2006 10,000/- 29.03.2012 16,010/- 2208 7. 70EE78 07.01.2006 10,000/- 07.01.2012 16,010/- 3051 8. 70EE78 07.01.2006 10,000/- 07.01.2012 16,010/- 3050
The maturity value of two NSCs on 07.01.2012 was Rs.32,020/- and other 6 NSCs was Rs.96,060/-. The complainant was provided with the printed form for regularization of the NSCs and he has to pay Rs.800/- to the OPs, as commission of their agent. The complainant signed the printed form and paid Rs.800/- to the OPs for above purpose under protest. The maturity value of the above NSCs was not provided to the complainant by the OPs on the lame excuse that as per rules, they cannot be issued to the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). The complainant has, thus, filed the complaint against the OPs directing them to pay Rs.32,020/- along with interest 24% p.a. from 07.01.2012 and Rs.96,060/- alongwith interest @24% p.a. from 29.03.2012 and to refund Rs.800/-, which was illegally recovered from the complainant, besides Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and Rs.5500/- as costs of litigation. First Appeal No. 1279 of 2012 6
4. Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed joint written reply and contested this complaint of the complainant by raising legal objections that the NSCs in the name of HUF cannot be purchased, as per notification dated 1st May, 1989 issued by Ministry of Finance, Government of India published in the Gazette of India extraordinary part, Section 3. The sanction of the competent authority was accorded vide no.F-2/1/2011-NS-11 dated June, 2011 issued by Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs in respect of National Saving Certificates and it cannot be challenged in the Consumer Forum. The validity of notification could be challenged in the writ petition only. This fact is admitted by the OPs that the complainant Sanjay Goyal purchased the NSCs nos.70EE783050 to 783051 of the denomination of Rs.10,000/- each, vide registration no.21288 and nos.70EE792206 to 70EE792211 of the denomination of Rs.10,000/- each, vide registration no.21847 to 21848 from Sub Postmaster Malerkotla in contravention of rules, as per notification dated 1st May, 1989 issued by Ministry of Finance, Government of India published in the Gazette of India extraordinary part II, Section 3, Sub Section (i). It was further averred that NSCs were purchased by the complainant irregularly and NSCs were required to be regularized. The complainant purchased the said NSCs through SAS agent Sh. Kuldeep Singh and the commission of Rs.800/- was paid to the agent at the time of purchasing the NSCs. The commission was to be recovered from First Appeal No. 1279 of 2012 7 SAS agent before submission the case for regularization as per D.G. Post New Delhi letter no.109-47/03/SBPG(Pt) dated 22.07.2004 received vide Chief P.M.G. Punjab Circle Chandigarh endorsement no.SB/13-R/11/02 dated 27.07.2004. The complainant was informed accordingly to deposit Rs.800/- and the case was sent to the office of the Chief P.M.G. Punjab Circle Chandigarh for regularization of NSCs. It was further averred that NSCs were regularized by the competent authority, vide Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs letter no.F-2/1/2011-NS-11 dated June, 2011 received vide letter no.SB/40-13/2010 dated 27.06.2011 with Post Office saving bank rates. The OPs denied that complainant is entitled to maturity value of the NSCs with future interest and other compensation. The OPs prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
5. The complainant tendered in evidence documents Ex.C-1 to C-10 and his affidavit Ex.C-11 and closed the evidence. As against it, the OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Kulwant Singh Superintendent, Post Office Sangrur Ex.R-1 alongwith documents Ex.R-2 to Ex.R-9 and closed the evidence. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum accepted the complaint of the complainant.
First appeal no.1280 of 2012
6. Complainant Ajay Kumar Goyal has filed the consumer complaint no.13 of 2012 under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short "Act") against the OPs on the First Appeal No. 1279 of 2012 8 averments that he purchased eight National Saving Certificates (NSCs) in the denomination of Rs.10,000/- each, as Karta of Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) from OP no.3. The details of the NSCs are re-produced as under:
Sr. Post NSC Date of Amount Date of Amount No. Office number purchase Rupees Maturity Rupees 1. 70EE79 29.03.2006 10,000/- 29.03.2012 16,010/- 2254 2. 70EE79 29.03.2006 10,000/- 29.03.2012 16,010/- 2255 3. 70EE79 29.03.2006 10,000/- 29.03.2012 16,010/- 2256 4. 70EE79 29.03.2006 10,000/- 29.03.2012 16,010/- 2257 5. 70EE79 29.03.2006 10,000/- 29.03.2012 16,010/- 2258 6. 70EE79 29.03.2006 10,000/- 29.03.2012 16,010/- 2259 7. 70EE78 07.01.2006 10,000/- 07.01.2012 16,010/- 3066 8. 70EE78 07.01.2006 10,000/- 07.01.2012 16,010/- 3067
The maturity value of two NSCs on 07.01.2012 was Rs.32,020/- and other 6 NSCs was Rs.96,060/-. The complainant was provided with the printed form for regularization of the NSCs and he has to pay Rs.800/- to the OPs, as commission of their agent. The complainant signed the printed form and paid Rs.800/- to the OPs under protest. The maturity value of the above NSCs was not provided to the complainant by the OPs on the lame excuses that as per rules, they cannot be issued to the HUF. The complainant has, thus, filed the complaint against the OPs directing them to pay Rs.32,020/- along with interest 24% p.a. from 07.01.2012 and Rs.96,060/- alongwith First Appeal No. 1279 of 2012 9 interest @24% p.a. from 29.03.2012 and to refund Rs.800/-, which was illegally recovered from the complainant, besides Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and Rs.5500/- as costs of litigation.
7. Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed joint written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant by raising legal objections that the NSCs in the name of HUF cannot be purchased as per notification dated 1st May, 1989 issued by Ministry of Finance, Government of India published in the Gazette of India extraordinary part, Section 3. The sanction of the competent authority was accorded vide no.F-2/1/2011-NS-11 dated June, 2011 issued by Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs in respect of National Saving Certificates and it cannot be challenged in the Consumer Forum. The validity of notification could be challenged in the writ petition only. This fact is admitted by the OPs that the complainant Ajay Kumar Goyal purchased the NSCs nos.70EE783066 to 783067 of the denomination of Rs.10,000/- each vide registration no.21294 and nos.70EE792254 to 70EE792259 of the denomination of Rs.10,000/- each, vide registration no.21868 to 21869 from Sub Postmaster Malerkotla in contravention of rules, as per notification dated 1st May, 1989 issued by Ministry of Finance, Government of India published in the Gazette of India extraordinary part II, Section 3, Sub Section (i). It was further averred that NSCs were purchased by the First Appeal No. 1279 of 2012 10 complainant irregularly and NSCs were required to be regularized. The complainant purchased the said NSCs through SAS agent Sh. Kuldeep Singh and the commission of Rs.800/- was paid to the agent at the time of purchasing the NSCs. The commission was to be recovered from SAS agent before submission of the case for regularization as per D.G. Post New Delhi letter no.109- 47/03/SBPG(Pt) dated 22.07.2004 received vide Chief P.M.G. Punjab Circle Chandigarh endorsement no.SB/13-R/11/02 dated 27.07.2004. The complainant was informed accordingly to deposit Rs.800/- and the case was sent to the office of the Chief P.M.G. Punjab Circle Chandigarh for regularization of NSCs. It was further averred that NSCs were regularized by the competent authority, vide Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs letter no.F-2/1/2011-NS-11 dated June, 2011 received vide letter no.SB/40-13/2010 dated 27.06.2011 with Post Office saving bank rates. The OPs denied that complainant is entitled to maturity value of the NSCs with future interest and other compensation. The OPs prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
8. The complainant tendered in evidence documents Ex.C-1 to C-10 and his affidavit Ex.C-11 and closed the evidence. As against it, the OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Kulwant Singh Superintendent, Post Office Sangrur Ex.R-1 alongwith documents Ex.R-2 to Ex.R-9 and closed the evidence. On conclusion of First Appeal No. 1279 of 2012 11 evidence and arguments, the District Forum accepted the complaint of the complainant.
First appeal no.1281 of 2012
9. Complainant Anil Kumar Goyal has filed the consumer complaint no.12 of 2012 under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short "Act") against the OPs on the averments that he purchased the eight National Saving Certificates (NSCs) in the denomination of Rs.10,000/- each, as Karta of Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) from OP no.3. The details of the NSCs are re-produced as under:
Sr. Post NSC Date of Amount Date of Amount No. Office number purchase Rupees Maturity Rupees 1. 70EE79 29.03.2006 10,000/- 29.03.2012 16,010/- 2239 2. 70EE79 29.03.2006 10,000/- 29.03.2012 16,010/- 2240 3. 70EE79 29.03.2006 10,000/- 29.03.2012 16,010/- 2241 4. 70EE79 29.03.2006 10,000/- 29.03.2012 16,010/- 2230 5. 70EE79 29.03.2006 10,000/- 29.03.2012 16,010/- 2231 6. 70EE79 29.03.2006 10,000/- 29.03.2012 16,010/- 2232 7. 70EE78 07.01.2006 10,000/- 07.01.2012 16,010/- 3046 8. 70EE78 07.01.2006 10,000/- 07.01.2012 16,010/- 3047
The maturity value of two NSCs on 07.01.2012 was Rs.32,020/- and the value of 6 NSCs on 29.03.2012 was Rs.96,060/-. The complainant was provided with the printed form for regularization of the NSCs and he has to pay Rs.800/- to the OPs, as commission of First Appeal No. 1279 of 2012 12 their agent. The complainant signed the printed form and paid Rs.800/- to the OPs under protest. The maturity value of the above NSCs was not provided to the complainant by the OPs on the lame excuses that as per rules, they cannot be issued to the HUF. The complainant has, thus, filed the complaint against the OPs directing them to pay Rs.32,020/- along with interest 24% p.a. from 07.01.2012 and Rs.96,060/- alongwith interest @24% p.a. from 29.03.2012 and to refund Rs.800/-, which was illegally recovered from the complainant, besides Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and Rs.5500/- as costs of litigation.
10. Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed joint written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant by raising legal objections that the NSCs in the name of HUF cannot be purchased as per notification dated 1st May, 1989 issued by Ministry of Finance, Government of India published in the Gazette of India extraordinary part, Section 3. The sanction of the competent authority was accorded vide no.F-2/1/2011-NS-11 dated June, 2011 issued by Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs in respect of National Saving Certificates and it cannot be challenged in the Consumer Forum. The validity of notification could be challenged in the writ petition only. This fact is admitted by the OPs that the complainant Anil Kumar Goyal purchased the NSCs nos.70EE783046 to 783047 of the denomination of Rs.10,000/- each vide registration no.21286 and First Appeal No. 1279 of 2012 13 nos.70EE792230 to 70EE792232 and 70EE792239 to 2241 of denomination of Rs.10,000/- each, vide registration no.21860 to 21863 from Sub Postmaster Malerkotla in contravention of rules, as per notification dated 1st May, 1989 issued by Ministry of Finance, Government of India published in the Gazette of India extraordinary part II, Section 3, Sub Section (i). It was further averred that NSCs were purchased by the complainant irregularly and NSCs were required to be regularized. The complainant purchased the said NSCs through SAS agent Sh. Kuldeep Singh and the commission of Rs.800/- was paid to the agent at the time of purchasing the NSCs. The commission was to be recovered from SAS agent before submission of the case for regularization as per D.G. Post New Delhi letter no.109-47/03/SBPG(Pt) dated 22.07.2004 received vide Chief P.M.G. Punjab Circle Chandigarh endorsement no.SB/13-R/11/02 dated 27.07.2004. The complainant was informed accordingly to deposit Rs.800/- and the case was sent to the office of the Chief P.M.G. Punjab Circle Chandigarh for regularization of NSCs. It was further averred that NSCs were regularized by the competent authority, vide Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs letter no.F-2/1/2011-NS-11 dated June, 2011 received vide letter no.SB/40-13/2010 dated 27.06.2011 with Post Office saving bank rates. The OPs denied that complainant is entitled to maturity value of the NSCs with future interest and other compensation. The OPs prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. First Appeal No. 1279 of 2012 14
11. The complainant tendered in evidence documents Ex.C-1 to C-10 and his affidavit Ex.C-11 and closed the evidence. As against it, the OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Kulwant Singh Superintendent, Post Office Sangrur Ex.R-1 alongwith documents Ex.R-2 to Ex.R-9 and closed the evidence. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum accepted the complaint of the complainant.
First appeal no.1282 of 2012
12. Complainant Anil Kumar Goyal has filed the consumer complaint no.11 of 2012 under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short "Act") against the OPs on the averments that he purchased eight National Saving Certificates (NSCs) in the denomination of Rs.10,000/- each, as Karta of Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) from OP no.3. The details of the NSCs are re-produced as under:
Sr. Post NSC Date of Amount Date of Amount No. Office number purchase Rupees Maturity Rupees 1. 70EE79 29.03.2006 10,000/- 29.03.2012 16,010/- 2242 2. 70EE79 29.03.2006 10,000/- 29.03.2012 16,010/- 2243 3. 70EE79 29.03.2006 10,000/- 29.03.2012 16,010/- 2244 4. 70EE79 29.03.2006 10,000/- 29.03.2012 16,010/- 2245 5. 70EE79 29.03.2006 10,000/- 29.03.2012 16,010/- 2246 6. 70EE79 29.03.2006 10,000/- 29.03.2012 16,010/- 2247 7. 70EE78 07.01.2006 10,000/- 07.01.2012 16,010/- 3048 8. 70EE78 07.01.2006 10,000/- 07.01.2012 16,010/- 3049 First Appeal No. 1279 of 2012 15
The maturity value of two NSCs on 07.01.2012 was Rs.32,020/- and the value of 6 NSCs on 29.03.2012 was Rs.96,060/-. The complainant was provided with the printed form for regularization of the NSCs and he has to pay Rs.800/- to the OPs, as commission of their agent. The complainant signed the printed form and paid Rs.800/- to the OPs under protest. The maturity value of the above NSCs was not provided to the complainant by the OPs on the lame excuses that as per rules they cannot be issued to the HUF. The complainant has, thus, filed the complaint against the OPs directing them to pay Rs.32,020/- along with interest 24% p.a. from 07.01.2012 and Rs.96,060/- alongwith interest @24% p.a. from 29.03.2012 and to refund Rs.800/-, which was illegally recovered from the complainant, besides Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and Rs.5500/- as costs of litigation.
13. Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed joint written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant by raising legal objections that the NSCs in the name of HUF cannot be purchased as per notification dated 1st May, 1989 issued by Ministry of Finance, Government of India published in the Gazette of India extraordinary part, Section 3. The sanction of the competent authority was accorded vide no.F-2/1/2011-NS-11 dated June, 2011 issued by Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs in respect of National Saving Certificates and it First Appeal No. 1279 of 2012 16 cannot be challenged in the Consumer Forum. The validity of notification could be challenged in the writ petition only. This fact is admitted by the OPs that the complainant Anil Kumar Goyal purchased the NSCs nos.70EE783048 to 783049 of the denomination of Rs.10,000/- each, vide registration no.21287 and nos.70EE792242 to 70EE792247 of the denomination of Rs.10,000/- each, vide registration no.21864 to 21865 from Sub Postmaster Malerkotla in contravention of rules as per notification dated 1st May, 1989 issued by Ministry of Finance, Government of India published in the Gazette of India extraordinary part II, Section 3, Sub Section
(i). It was further averred that NSCs were purchased by the complainant irregularly and NSCs were required to be regularized. The complainant purchased the said NSCs through SAS agent Sh. Kuldeep Singh and the commission of Rs.800/- was paid to the agent at the time of purchasing the NSCs. The commission was to be recovered from SAS agent before submission of the case for regularization as per D.G. Post New Delhi letter no.109- 47/03/SBPG(Pt) dated 22.07.2004 received vide Chief P.M.G. Punjab Circle Chandigarh endorsement no.SB/13-R/11/02 dated 27.07.2004. The complainant was informed accordingly to deposit Rs.800/- and the case was sent to the office of the Chief P.M.G. Punjab Circle Chandigarh for regularization of NSCs. It was further averred that NSCs were regularized by the competent authority, vide Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic First Appeal No. 1279 of 2012 17 Affairs letter no.F-2/1/2011-NS-11 dated June, 2011 received vide letter no.SB/40-13/2010 dated 27.06.2011 with Post Office saving bank rates. The OPs denied the averment that complainant is entitled to maturity value of the NSCs with future interest and other compensation, as prayed for. The OPs prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
14. The complainant tendered in evidence documents Ex.C-1 to C-10 and his affidavit Ex.C-11 and closed the evidence. As against it, the OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Kulwant Singh Superintendent, Post Office Sangrur Ex.R-1 alongwith documents Ex.R-2 to Ex.R-10 and closed the evidence. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum accepted the complaint of the complainant.
First appeal no.1283 of 2012
15. Complainant Deepak Kumar Goyal has filed the consumer complaint no.14 of 2012 under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short "Act") against the OPs on the averments that he purchased the eight National Saving Certificates (NSCs) in the denomination of Rs.10,000/- each, as Karta of Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) from OP no.3. The details of the NSCs are re-produced as under:
Sr. Post NSC Date of Amount Date of Amount No. Office number purchase Rupees Maturity Rupees 1. 70EE79 30.03.2006 10,000/- 30.03.2012 16,010/- 2353 2. 70EE79 30.03.2006 10,000/- 30.03.2012 16,010/- 2354 First Appeal No. 1279 of 2012 18 3. 70EE79 30.03.2006 10,000/- 30.03.2012 16,010/- 2355 4. 70EE79 30.03.2006 10,000/- 30.03.2012 16,010/- 2356 5. 70EE79 30.03.2006 10,000/- 30.03.2012 16,010/- 2357 6. 70EE78 06.01.2006 10,000/- 06.01.2012 16,010/- 3012 7. 70EE78 06.01.2006 10,000/- 06.01.2012 16,010/- 3013 8. 70EE78 06.01.2006 10,000/- 06.01.2012 16,010/- 3014
The maturity value of above NSCs on 06.01.2012 was Rs.32,020/- and on 29.03.2012 was Rs.96,060/-. The complainant was provided with the printed form for regularization of the NSCs and he has to pay Rs.800/- to the OPs as commission of their agent. The complainant signed the printed form and paid Rs.800/- to the OPs under protest. The maturity value of the above NSCs was not provided to the complainant by the OPs on the lame excuses that as per Rules they cannot be issued to the HUF. The complainant has, thus, filed the complaint against the OPs directing them to pay Rs.32,020/- along with interest 24% p.a. from 07.01.2012 and Rs.96,060/- alongwith interest @24% p.a. from 29.03.2012 and to refund Rs.800/-, which was illegally recovered from the complainant, besides Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and Rs.5500/- as costs of litigation.
16. Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed joint written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant by raising legal objections that the NSCs in the name of HUF cannot be purchased First Appeal No. 1279 of 2012 19 as per notification dated 1st May, 1989 issued by Ministry of Finance, Government of India published in the Gazette of India extraordinary part, Section 3. The sanction of the competent authority was accorded vide no.F-2/1/2011-NS-11 dated June, 2011 issued by Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs in respect of National Saving Certificates and it cannot be challenged in the Consumer Forum. The validity of notification could be challenged in the writ petition only. This fact is admitted by the OPs that the complainant Anil Kumar Goyal purchased the NSCs nos.70EE783012 to 783014 of the denomination of Rs.10,000/- each vide registration no.21278 and nos.70EE792353 to 70EE792357, vide registration no.21909 to 21910 from Sub Postmaster Malerkotla in contravention of rules, as per notification dated 1st May, 1989 issued by Ministry of Finance, Government of India published in the Gazette of India extraordinary part II, Section 3, Sub Section (i). It was further averred that NSCs were purchased by the complainant irregularly and NSCs were required to be regularized. The complainant purchased the said NSCs through SAS agent Sh. Kuldeep Singh and the commission of Rs.800/- was paid to the agent at the time of purchasing the NSCs. The commission was to be recovered from SAS agent before submission the case for regularization as per D.G. Post New Delhi letter no.109-47/03/SBPG(Pt) dated 22.07.2004 received vide Chief P.M.G. Punjab Circle Chandigarh endorsement no.SB/13-R/11/02 First Appeal No. 1279 of 2012 20 dated 27.07.2004. The complainant was informed accordingly to deposit Rs.800/- and the case was sent to the office of the Chief P.M.G. Punjab Circle Chandigarh for regularization of NSCs. It was further averred that NSCs were regularized by the competent authority vide Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs letter no.F-2/1/2011-NS-11 dated June, 2011 received vide letter no.SB/40-13/2010 dated 27.06.2011 with Post Office saving bank rates. The OPs denied that complainant is entitled to maturity value of the NSCs with future interest and other compensation. The OPs prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
17. The complainant tendered in evidence documents Ex.C-1 to C-10 and his affidavit Ex.C-11 and closed the evidence. As against it, the OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Kulwant Singh Superintendent, Post Office Sangrur Ex.R-1 alongwith documents Ex.R-2 to Ex.R-9 and closed the evidence. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum accepted the complaint of the complainant.
18. Dissatisfied with the above said orders of District Forum Sangrur, the opposite parties of above referred appeals have preferred the above referred separate appeals.
19. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the record of the above referred cases. From evaluation of evidences on the record, we find that the fact of purchase of NSCs by the complainants in the above referred First Appeal No. 1279 of 2012 21 complaints is not disputed. Similarly, this fact is not in dispute that the maturity value of the NSCs has been provided as referred to above in the respective complaints. The point of controversy before us, as argued by counsel for the appellants, is that the NSCs cannot be issued to HUF or Karta thereof as per notification issued by the Finance Ministry Government of India dated 01.05.1989. We have examined the notification to settle the controversy between the parties as to whether the NSCs were purchased by the complainants after issuance of above notification in the year 1989 and it was permissible or not. The point of issuance of notification is a legal point and there could be no ignorance of law, as per the law of the country, nor it could be pleaded, nor entertained by the tribunal. Ignorance of law is no excuse. Our attention has been drawn by counsel for the appellant to Rule 4 of National Saving Certificates (VIII Issue) Rules, 1989, which is reproduced as under:
4.Types of Certificate and issued thereof:-
(a) Single Holder Type Certificate;
(b) Joint 'A' Type Certificate;
(c) Joint 'B' Type Certificate;
(2) (a) Single Holder Type Certificates may be issued to:-
(i) an adult for himself or on behalf of a minor or to a minor;
(b) A joint 'A' Type certificate may be issued jointly to two adults payable to both the holders jointly or to the survivor.First Appeal No. 1279 of 2012 22
(c) A joint 'B' Type certificate may be issued jointly to two adults (MOF(DEA) Notification no.GSR289 dated 13.05.2005) (3) No Resident Indians are not eligible to purchase the National Savings Certificates.
Provided that if a resident who subsequently becomes Non Resident Indian during the currency of maturity period, shall be allowed to avail the benefits of the certificates on maturity on a non Repatriation basis. Note: The certificates issued to Trusts and HUF before 13.05.2005 shall continue till maturity and will not be extended further. The maturity values shall be allowed to be paid in accordance with the said rules.
(MOF(DEA) letter no.F-2/8/2005-NS-II dated 20.05.2005) It is evident from perusal of this rule that this rule does not contemplate the purchase of NSCs by HUF or Karta. The persons who are competent to purchase NSCs have been enumerated under Rule 4 (Supra). It is, thus, evident from perusal of notification issued by Ministry of Finance Government of India no.G.S.R.496(E) dated 01.05.1989 and further amended from time to time, that there is no provision for the purchase of NSCs by the HUF or the Karta thereof. Undisputedly the NSCs in the above referred complaints have been purchased by the complainants as Karta of HUF. In this view of the matter, particularly Rule 4 of NSCs (VIII-issue) Rules, 1989, the complainants of above referred complaints could not have purchased NSCs as Karta of HUF, as per the above notification, which is the law of the country. The purchase of NSCs by the First Appeal No. 1279 of 2012 23 complainants of above referred complainants is irregular and not permitted by law.
20. Now, we are called upon to determine this point as to whether the complainants have suffered any loss for the irregularities in regard to purchase of above NSCs by them from the OPs. Our attention has been drawn to Rule 13 of The Post office Saving Certificates Rules, 1960, which is reproduced as under:
13. Excess or irregular holdings:- (1) Any certificate purchased or acquired in excess of the limits prescribed in these rules or in the old rules or in contravention of these rules shall be encashed by the holder as soon as fact of the holding being in excess of the limit or in contravention of these rules is discovered and no interest shall be paid on either the excess holding or any holding in contravention of these rules. Provided that the holding shall not be considered in excess of the limit prescribed in these rules or in the old rules, if it is due to any of the following reasons, namely;
(a) inheritance;
(b) award by the Government for meritorious services;
(c) survivorship in the case of joint holdings;
(d) statutory devolution; and
(e) nomination -
Provided further that where the Central Government is satisfied that such purchase or acquisition of certificates is due First Appeal No. 1279 of 2012 24 to a bona fide error on the part of the holder thereof, it may authorize payment of simple interest on the face value of the certificate at the same rate as is admissible for the time being in force for the type of saving accounts in the post office savings bank with which such holder is entitled to open under the provisions of the Post Office Savings Account Rules, 1981.
(2) If any interest has been paid on any excess holding or any holding which is in contravention of these rules, it shall be forthwith refunded to the Government, failing which, the Government shall be entitled to recover the amount involved from any money payable by the Government to the investor or as an arrear of land revenue.
It is, thus, evident from perusal of above referred Rule 13 of the Post Office Savings Certificates Rules, 1960 that any certificate purchased from acquired in excess of the limits prescribed in these rules or in the old rules or in contravention of these rules shall be encashed by the holder as soon as fact of the holding being in excess of the limit or in contravention of these rules is discovered and no interest shall be paid on either the excess holding or any holding in contravention of these rules. Rule 13 (Supra) thus, visualized awarding of no interest, in the case of contravention of the Rules for purchase of any such certificate. The counsel for the OPs, now respondents in the above referred appeal could not point out any substance on the record or any contrary law before us. This First Appeal No. 1279 of 2012 25 tribunal cannot strike down the validity of the notification of the above rules, as cited before us by counsel for the appellants. This is exclusive function of the constitutional courts dealing with the constitutional validity of the notifications and the rules. We are strictly bound by the rules, as laid down above. Rule 13 of the Post Office Savings Certificates Rules, 1960 contemplates awarding of no interest, when the purchase is in contravention of the rules. The matter is not resnova. The Apex Court has examined this point in "Arulmighu Dhandayudhapaniswamy Thirukoil, Palani, Tamil Nadu, through its Joint Commissioner Vs. Director General of Post Offices, Department of Posts and others"
2011(3)R.C.R.(Civil)-776, wherein it has been held by the Apex Court that "Post Office accepting deposit of Rs.1,40 crores from respondent under five year fixed deposit scheme which scheme had already been discontinued- Post office refunding the amount after 4 months- Respondent not entitled to interest under the Rules and it is not deficiency in service." The National Commission has also held in "Union of India and another Vs. Girija Agarwal (Smt.) and other" 2007(1)CLT-658 that "Post Office Saving Bank Account Rules, 1981, Rule 4- Monthly income scheme- Account can be opened only by 2/3 adults- Respondent no.1 deposited amount of Rs.3,36,000/- in seven accounts with her two minor daughters- She could have deposited only upto Rs.2,04,000/- The payment of excess amount of interest of Rs.1,07,840/- rightly recovered from First Appeal No. 1279 of 2012 26 respondent no.1 to 3 - Petitioners 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 Officer Savings Bank Account upto the maturity period." It is, thus, plain from perusal of this authority of National Commission that there is no such provision of giving interest and in case interest is paid by the Post Office, it could be recovered, if purchase of instrument is against or in contravention of law. The counsel for the OPs, now respondents in above referred appeals has not cited any contrary authority before us.
21. We further find that the OPs sent the case of the complainants to the Ministry of Finance for regularization; it is so pleaded in the written replies of the OPs, now appellants on the record. It is pleaded in the written reply by the OPs that the National Saving Certificates were regularized by the competent authority, vide Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs letter no.F-2/1/2011-NS-11 dated June, 2011 received, vide letter no.SB/40-13/2010 dated 27.06.2011 with Post Office SB rates, as detailed in the written reply. The complainants are alleged to be bound by Rules of NSCs. Even as per the version of the OPs, only Post Office Saving Bank rates were admissible, as per the direction of Ministry of Finance for NSCs instead of maturity value thereof. As a matter of concession, the cases of the complainants were regularized and the Ministry of Finance directed the OPs to pay the Post Office Saving Bank interest rates to the complainants. First Appeal No. 1279 of 2012 27
22. We have examined the orders of the District Forum on the record. The District Forum mainly stressed on this point that complainants were not aware about the legal implications. Ignorance of law is no excuse in this part of the country, as per law obtaining in this part of the land. Consequently, the complainants of above referred complaints are entitled the actual amount invested by them in the shape of NSCs alongwith Post Office Saving Bank Interest as admissible under Rules from the date of investment till actual payment from OPs. We further hold that complainants are also entitled to receive the amount of Rs.800/- given by them as commission. The complainants are also entitled to the costs of litigation of Rs.5500/- in each of the complaints, as awarded by the District Forum.
23. As a result of our above discussions, we, thus, decide the controversy by directing that complainants of above referred complaints are entitled to recover the actual amount of NSCs invested by them with the OPs in all the above referred five complaints alongwith Post Office Bank rate of interest from the date of their investment till actual payment, as admissible under Rules. Each of the complainant is also entitled to Rs.5500/- as costs of litigation and refund of Rs.800/- given by them as commission. The orders of the District Forum, thus, stands set aside and are substituted in all above referred complaints by the order passed by this Commission in the above referred appeals. The OPs, now First Appeal No. 1279 of 2012 28 appellants of above referred appeals shall make the due amount payable to the complainants, if any, within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, failing which, the complainants can take recourse to Section 27 of the Act.
24. Consequently, the above referred appeals are accepted and order of the District Forum is substituted with the modification, as indicated above in all the cases.
25. The appellants of First Appeal no.1279 of 2012 had deposited an amount of Rs.11,170/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount, as due to complainant, be remitted by the registry alongwith interest, which accrued thereupon, if any, to the complainant, now respondent of this appeal after the expiry of 45 days.
26. The appellants of First Appeal no.1280 of 2012 had deposited an amount of Rs.11,170/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount, as due to complainant, be remitted by the registry alongwith interest, which accrued thereupon, if any, to the complainant, now respondent of this appeal after the expiry of 45 days.
27. The appellants of First Appeal no.1281 of 2012 had deposited an amount of Rs.11,170/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount, as due to complainant, be remitted by the registry alongwith interest, which accrued thereupon, if any, to First Appeal No. 1279 of 2012 29 the complainant, now respondent of this appeal after the expiry of 45 days.
28. The appellants of First Appeal no.1282 of 2012 had deposited an amount of Rs.11,170/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount, as due to complainant, be remitted by the registry alongwith interest, which accrued thereupon, if any, to the complainant, now respondent of this appeal after the expiry of 45 days.
29. The appellants of First Appeal no.1283 of 2012 had deposited an amount of Rs.11,170/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount, as due to complainant, be remitted by the registry alongwith interest, which accrued thereupon, if any, to the complainant, now respondent of this appeal after the expiry of 45 days.
30. Arguments in above referred appeals were heard on 16.07.2015 and the orders were reserved. Now the orders be communicated to the parties. The appeals could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(J. S. KLAR) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (H.S. GURAM) MEMBER July 21, 2015.
(MM) First Appeal No. 1279 of 2012 30