State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1.The Head Post Master, Head Post ... vs A.R.Jayagopal, S/O. Rpa ... on 25 August, 2023
Daily Order IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI. Present: Hon'ble THIRU JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH : PRESIDENT F.A. No. 30 of 2020 [Against the order passed in C.C. No.27 of 2017 dated 16.05.2019 on the file of the D.C.D.R.F., Villupuram]. Friday, the 25th day of August 2023 1. The Head Post Master Head Post Office Thirukkoilur & Post Villupuram -605 757 2. The Superintendent of Post Offices Vridhachalam Division Vridhachalam -606 001. .. Appellants/ Opposite Parties - Vs - A.R. Jayagopal S/o.RPA Radhakrishnan D.No.133, South Street Thirukkoilur-605 757 A.R. Jayagopal's Authorised Agent Thiru N.E. Suvithaganesan President, Thirukkoilur Taluk Consumer Protection Sangam, Thirukkoilur-605 757. Villupuram District. .. Respondent/ Complainant Counsel for the Appellants/ Opposite Parties : M/s.S.Chandrasekaran For the Respondent/Complainant : Party-in-Person This appeal came before me for final hearing on 24.08.2023, and on hearing the arguments of the counsel for the Appellants and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following:- O R D E R
R.SUBBIAH J., PRESIDENT This appeal has been filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as against the order dated 16.05.2019, in C.C. No.27 of 2017, by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Villupuram, allowing the complaint filed by the respondent herein, in part.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred as per their ranking before the District Forum.
3. The factual background culminating in this appeal is as follows: The complainant had opened a PPF (HUF) Account on 17.03.1999 with the 1st opposite party/Head Post Office, Tirukkoyilur and was depositing money regularly. The Account Number is 0771571783. The interest accrued was credited regularly at the end of each year in the said account. Subsequent to the credit of the interest amount of Rs.1,37,081/- of the year 2014-2015, the total balance available in the account of the complainant was Rs.18,62,730/-. On 03.11.2015, when the complainant approached the 1st opposite party/ Post Office to deposit an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- in his PPF (HUF) Account No.0771571783, the officials of the 1st opposite party refused to receive further amount stating that the said account has been closed on maturity. Further, the complainant has been informed that only if he renew the account, he can deposit further amounts and that he should bring the concerned persons to affix their signature at the time of renewal and the renewal form was handed over to him. The complainant followed the instructions and after renewal, deposited a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-. Hence, the total deposit as shown in his statement of account was Rs.20,12,730/-. On crediting the interest amount of Rs.1,67,495/- for the year 2015-2016, as on 31.03.2016 the total balance available in his account was Rs.21,80,225/-. While so, on 13.01.2017 the complainant received a letter dated 12.07.2017 from the 1st opposite party stating that as per rules the PPF Accounts opened in the name of HUF prior to the year 2005 would be closed on maturity on 31st March of the 16th Financial year and that he is not eligible to the interest granted for the year 2015-2016 and hence the interest amount of Rs.1,67,495/- credited to his account after maturity, has been debited from his account and he was further directed to close the account. Subsequently, the 1st opposite party had sent a cheque dated 18.01.2017 for a sum of Rs.20,12,730/-, without adding the interest accrued subsequent to 31.03.2015. It is the contention of the complainant that he is actually eligible for Rs.21,80,225/- but the 1st opposite party had paid only Rs.20,12,730/-, without adding interest for the further amount of Rs.1,50,000/- deposited by the complainant in the year 2015-2016, stating that he is not entitled for the interest amount, after maturity of the PPF (HUF) Account. The 1st opposite party had asked the complainant to renew the account and after the complainant renewed the said account, the 1st opposite party had credited the deposit of Rs.1,50,000/- in the PPF (HUF) account and as such had shown the balance of Rs.20,12,730/-. All of a sudden, by letter dated 12.01.2017, the complainant has been informed that he is not entitled for renewal of the account subsequent to maturity and had paid the complainant a sum of Rs.20,12,730/-. Alleging the said act of the opposite parties would amount to deficiency of service, the complaint has been filed before the District Forum seeking the following directions to the opposite parties:-
to refund the interest amount of Rs.1,67,495/- debited from his account ;
to pay a sum of Rs.2,08,405/- towards interest @ 12% for the period 01.04.2016 to 17.01.2017 on the available balance amount of Rs.21,80,225/-;
to pay a sum of Rs.5,100/- towards litigation expenses; and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony.
4. The said complaint was resisted by the opposite parties by filing a written version stating that it is true that the complainant Thiru A.R.Jeyagopal opened a PPF (HUF) Account on 17.03.1999 in the Head Post Office, Tirukkoyilur in Account No. 0771571783. The interest amount of Rs.1,37,081/- for the year 2014-2015 was calculated and credited to the account of the complainant. Thereby, the total balance available in the account of the complainant was Rs.18,62,730/- as on 31.03.2015. But, it is false to state that the 1st opposite party refused to receive the deposit amount of Rs.1,50,000/- on 03.11.2015. Since the office migrated from Sanchay Post software to Core Banking Solutions (CBS) software, the account had been migrated as an individual account from the account opened in favour of a Hindu Undivided Family. Subsequently, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- along with his renewal form. Hence, the deposited amount raised as Rs.20,12,730/-. It is correct that an interest amount of Rs.1,67,495/- was credited in the account of the complainant for the year 2015-2016 and the total balance amount was Rs.21,80,225/-. It is also true that the 1st opposite party sent a letter dated 12.01.2017 to the complainant, informing that the PPF(HUF) account of the complainant has been opened prior to 13.05.2005 and has got matured on 31.03.2015 and that as per the current provisions of rules, the postal department is not allowed to pay interest for the period ending 31.03.2016 and hence the interest credited in the account of the complainant is reversed from his account. To that effect, a cheque for a sum of Rs.20,12,730/-, deducting the interest amount of Rs.1,67,495/- granted for the year 2015-2016 was sent to the complainant. Moreover, the 1st opposite party being a staff of the postal department, has to serve as per the day to day orders and instructions of the postal authorities and the Ministry of Finance. He had acted only as per the instructions contained in the SB order No.23/2010 communicated vide Postal Directorate Lr.No.32-01/2010 S.B dated 13.12.2010. In the said letter it has been instructed as follows:-
"PPF accounts opened in the name of HUF prior to 13.05.2005 will be closed on maturity i.e. 31st March of the 16th Financial Year from the year in which account was opened. No further interest will be admissible.
PPF accounts opened in the name of HUF prior to 13.05.2005 but have already been matured but not yet closed, shall be closed on 31st March 2011 after which no further interest shall be admissible."
Hence, the complainant's account was migrated as a normal PPF Account and the deposit of Rs.1,50,000/- was accepted in it on 03.11.2015 and as a credit of interest a sum of Rs.1,67,495/- has been allowed for the Financial Year 2015-2016, without noticing the date of maturity of the complainant's account. It was observed by the audit authorities that the complainant's PPF account which should have been closed on maturity during March 2015 was under operation. The audit authorities instructed the opposite parties to close the account of the complainant and refund the excess deposit amount to the complainant after adjusting the excess paid interest amount. Accordingly, the 1st opposite party intimated the matter to the complainant vide their letter No.HO/PPF/01/16-17 dated 12.01.2017 that the PPF account of the complainant having No.0771571783 opened in the name of the Hindu Undivided Family prior to 13.05.2005, has matured on 31st March of the 16th financial year from the year in which the account was opened and no further extension for the account and interest would be admissible. Hence, the 1st opposite party requested the complainant to close the account. Since the complainant failed to close the account, the 1st opposite party regulated the complainant's account and the correct amount of deposit made in the account along with the admissible interest amount, was paid to the complainant by way of a cheque. There was neither wilful nor insufficient service rendered by the opposite parties. Clause 13 of the Rules governing the Savings Bank Accounts state that the post office is competent to recover any interest or any other amount paid in excess, in the same manner as arrears of land revenue. This clause has been accepted by the complainant while opening the PPF account. The 1st opposite party has acted as per the instructions given by the audit authorities and as per the instructions contained in the SB order No.23/2010 communicated vide Postal Directorate Lr.No.32-01/2010 S.B dated 13.12.2010 only. If the complainant is aggrieved over the said order, he has to approach only the Civil Court and not the Consumer Redressal Forum. Thus, they sought for dismissal of the complaint.
5. In order to substantiate the claim, both sides filed their respective proof affidavits and, while the complainant marked 3 documents as Exs.A1 to A3, on the side of the Postal Department, 3 documents were marked as Exs.B1 to B3.
6. The District Forum, on analyzing the entire evidence on record, had come to the conclusion that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and allowed the complaint in part. The District Forum had observed that it is an admitted fact that the 1st opposite party had credited Rs.1,67,495/- towards interest upto 31.03.2016. The 1st opposite party had renewed the PPF(HUF) Account on 03.11.2015 and had accepted the deposit amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. But he has sent the letter to the complainant only on 12.01.2017 narrating the above provisions and had withdrawn the interest credited in the account of the complainant. The complainant is living in a remote village, has no knowledge about the rules and regulations of the postal department. The complainant being a senior citizen has invested the money for his emergency purposes, on the fond hope that from the credited amount he could meet his obligations. The expectation of an aged village person has been shattered by the postal department showing the rules and regulations which is nothing but deficiency of service. Although the rules and regulations are not in favour of the complainant, due to the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- towards compensation, Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5000/- as costs. Aggrieved over the same, the present appeal has been filed by the opposite parties.
7. There is no representation by the respondent/ complainant, party in person.
8. Keeping in mind the submissions made by the Counsel for the Appellants/opposite parties, perused the entire material available on records.
9. The respondent/ complainant had opened a PPF (HUF) Account No.0771571783 with the 1st opposite party on 17.03.1999. The accrued interest was credited regularly at the end of each financial year in the said account. An interest amount of Rs.1,37,081/- was credited for the year 2014-2015 and the total balance as on 31.03.2015 in the account of the complainant was Rs.18,62,730/-. On 03.11.2015, the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- along with the renewal form, in his PPF (HUF) Account No.0771571783. Hence, the total deposit was raised to Rs.20,12,730/-. The interest for the year 2015-2016, amounting to Rs.1,67,495/- was added to the said account and therefore as on 31.03.2016 there was a total balance of Rs.21,80,225/-. In such a situation, on 13.01.2017 the complainant received a letter dated 12.01.2017 from the 1st opposite party stating that the complainant is not eligible for the interest granted on 31.03.2016 and hence the interest amount of Rs.1,67,495/- credited to his account has been reversed from his account and he was directed to close the account. Subsequently, the 1st opposite party had paid a sum of Rs.20,12,730/- by way of a cheque to the complainant and closed the said account. It is the contention of the complainant that he is actually eligible for a sum of Rs.21,80,225/- which was the balance amount available in his account on 31.03.2016 but the 1st opposite party had paid only Rs.20,12,730/-. The 1st opposite party is not correct in deducting the interest amount paid in the year 2016 for his deposit of Rs.20,12,730/- and hence there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
10. In this regard, counsel for the opposite parties invited the attention of this Court to the instructions contained in SB order No.23/2010 communicated vide Postal Directorate Lr.No.32-01/2010 S.B dated 13.12.2010. In the said letter, it has been stated as follows:
PPF accounts opened in the name of HUF prior to 13.05.2005 cannot be further extended after maturity and no further deposit can be accepted in such accounts after maturity.
PPF accounts opened in the name of HUF prior to 13.05.2005 will be closed on maturity i.e. 31st March of the 16th Financial Year from the year in which account was opened. No further interest will be admissible."
Therefore, in accordance with the said instructions, the account of the respondent/complainant was migrated as a normal PPF Account and the irregular credit of interest to the tune of Rs.1,67,495/- which has been allowed without noticing the date of maturity in the complainant's account, was subsequently reversed. In fact, the audit authorities have observed that the complainant's PPF Account should have been closed on maturity during March 2015. The 1st appellant/ 1st opposite party had requested the respondent/ complainant to close the account. Since the respondent/ complainant failed to do so, the 1st appellant/ 1st opposite party regulated his account and calculated the exact amount of deposit along with the admissible interest amount and paid to the respondent/complainant by way of a cheque. Furthermore, Clause 13 of the Rules governing the Savings Bank Accounts state that the post office is competent to recover any interest or any other amount paid in excess, in the same manner as arrears of land revenue.
11. Therefore, this Commission does not find any infirmity in the deduction of the sum of Rs.1,67,495/- which was an irregular credit of interest. But the District Forum had allowed the complaint stating that the complainant is living in a remote village, having no knowledge about the rules and regulations and the opposite parties/ the postal department based on the rules and regulations, cannot withdraw the interest amount. The said finding is not legally sustainable. Moreover, the District Forum had failed to note that the 1st respondent/1st opposite party is a staff of the Postal Department and he has to serve as per the day to day instructions of the postal authorities and orders of the Ministry of Finance. Hence, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the appellants/opposite parties and as such, the appeal is liable to be allowed.
12. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order dated 16.05.2019 passed in C.C. No.27 of 2017, by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Villupuram, is set aside. Consequently, the complaint is dismissed.
R.SUBBIAH PRESIDENT Index : Yes/ No AVR/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/August /2023