State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Superintendent, Postal Department vs 1. B.Ganapathi Rao S/O Late Ramulu on 17 September, 2012
BEFORE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD F.A.No. 199 OF 2012 AGAINST C.C.NO.75 OF 2011 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM VIZIANAGARAM Between The Superintendent Postal Department Head Post Office Vizianagaram Appellant/opposite party No.1 A N D 1. B.Ganapathi Rao S/o late Ramulu Aged about 60 years, Retd. Bank Employee R/o D.No.1-15-8A, Samata Marg Cantonment, Vizianagar Respondent/complainant 2. The Branch Manager Syndicate Bank Vizianagaram Respondent/opposite party no.2 Counsel for the Appellant Sri Vasi Reddy Vinod Kumar Counsel for the Respondent Party in person QUORUM: SRI R.LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER
& SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HONBLE MEMBER MONDAY THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND TWELVE Oral Order ( As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member) ***
1. The opposite party no.1 is the appellant.
2. The complaint was filed against the appellant herein and Syndicate Bank seeking for balance maturity amount of `2,000/- under three NSC bonds with subsequent interest @ 24% per annum and `5,000/- towards compensation and costs.
3. The complaint purchased three national savings certificate bonds from the first opposite party for `10,000/-, `10,000/- and `5,000/- respectively and pledged the three NSC bonds with the second opposite party on 25.5.2009. On request of the complainant and after maturity of the bond, the second opposite party bank had sent them to the first opposite party for payment of the maturity value. The second opposite party had not sent the NSC bonds immediately and kept them with him for a period of 11 days. The first opposite party had not paid the amount immediately receiving the bonds from the second opposite party-bank and it had taken a period of 14 days to pay the amount under the bonds.
4. The first opposite party paid an amount of `40,025/- to the complainant by crediting the amount to the account of the complainant with the second opposite party -bank. The second opposite party deducted the loan amount from the maturity value and failed to pay the balance amount of `2,000/- to the complainant.
5. The claim was resisted by the first opposite party on the premise that the maturity value of the three NSC bonds is `16,010/-, `16,010/- and `8,005/- which was shown on the left side in the NSC bonds. An endorsement was made on the left side of each of the NSC bonds that w.e.f., 1.3.2003, the maturity value is `160.10ps for denomination of `100/-. As per the notification issued by the Ministry of Finance the value of three certificates is `40,025/-.
6. The second opposite party contended that the complainant obtained loan and failed to repay the amount in time. The second opposite party, sent the three NSC bonds pledged with it after the maturity period to the first opposite party on 12.4.2011 and the first opposite party issued bankers cheque in favour of the second opposite party for `40,025/- on 13.4.2011. It is contended that the complainant corrected the figures on the right side in the certificates to claim the amount. It is contended that the maturity value was adjusted towards the debt due by the complainant to the second opposite party-bank. The complainant is still due to the opposite party-bank and he pledged six NSC certificates for the other loan accounts and those certificates are not matured yet.
7. The complainant has filed his affidavit and the documents Exs.A1 to A3. On behalf of the opposite parties, the Superintend of Post Offices of opposite party no.1 and the Branch Manager of the opposite party no.2 Bank have filed their affidavits and the documents, EXs.B1 and B2.
8. The District forum has allowed the complaint on the premise that the opposite party no.1 wrongly calculated the interest and the complainant should not suffer for the mistake committed by the first opposite party. The District forum observed that the first opposite party retained the amount under the NSC bonds for a period of 14 days and the second opposite party caused delay of 11 days in sending the NSC bonds to the first opposite party.
9. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the district Forum, the first opposite party has filed appeal contending that the District Forum failed to consider the relevant position of law and the written version of the first opposite party and that the complainant has no right to claim the pledged certificates.
10. The point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum is vitiated by misappreciation of fact or law?
11. The facts beyond any dispute are that the complainant purchased the National Savings Certificate on 26.3.2011 from the first opposite party and pledged them with the second opposite party for the purpose of obtaining loan. The dispute between the complainant and the opposite party no.1 is mainly centers around the quantum of maturity value.
The complainant claims `16,810/- on each of the two National Savings Certificates and `8,405/- on the third National Savings Certificate. The complainant claimed the amount basing on the endorsement made on right side in the each of the National Savings Certificate. At the right side portion of the National Savings Certificate under the column of the depositors name, the amount is mentioned as `8,405/- and the date of maturity as 26.3.2011.
12. The first opposite party has contended that the amount claimed by the complainant is contrary to the notification issued by Ministry of Finance and also the sum mentioned on the left side of the certificate in the form a rubber stamp showing the rate of interest as amended from the year 2003. The claim of the complainant is based on the amount promised to be paid by the first opposite party on the date of maturity mentioned in each of the National Savings Certificates. However, the amount claimed by the complainant is found to be against the notification issued by Ministry of Finance. The maturity value of NSCs issued w.e.f., 1.3.2003 is mentioned at the left side of the certificate as `160.10 ps for denomination of Rs.100/- and the endorsement was made in accordance with the notification issued by the Finance Ministry on behalf of the Government of India.
13. There is lapse on the part of the staff of the first opposite party in issuing the NSCs by making correction of the amount to be paid on maturity. The Honble Supreme Court in SLP No.38 of 1995 between the Postmaster Dargamitta, HPO, Nellore Vs. Raja Prameelamma (1998) 9 SCC 706 held that the maturity value mentioned in NSCs cannot be in contravention to the notification issued by Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India.
14. In The Post Master Dargamitta (supra), the apex Court held that the complainant therein issued six National Savings Certificates for `10,000/- each on 28.04.1987 from the Post Office. According to the Notification issued by the Government of India, the rate of interest payable with effect from 01.04.1987 was 11 per cent. However, due to inadvertence on the part of the clerical staff of the Post Office, the old rate of interest and the maturity value which was printed on the certificates could not be corrected. The question that arose in that case was whether the higher rate of interest printed in the Certificate shall be paid or only the rate of interest mentioned in the Notification is applicable. The Court held that even though the Certificates contained the terms of contract between the Government of India and the holders of the National Savings Certificate, the terms in the contract were contrary to the Notification and therefore the terms of contract being unlawful and void were not binding on the Government of India and as such the Government refusing to pay interest at the rate mentioned in the Certificate is not a case of deficiency in service either in terms of law or in terms of contract as defined under Section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection 11 Act, 1986. The above said decision is squarely applicable to the case on hand.
15. The rate of interest mentioned in the left side of the certificate which is in accordance with the notification issued by the Finance Ministry and upheld by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned decision would be the factor for calculating maturity value and by calculation of the amount at the rate of interest claimed by the first opposite party in accordance with the notification issued by the Finance Ministry, is Rs.40,025/-. The District Forum though was right in coming to the conclusion that the first opposite party was negligent in making correction of rate of interest, the direction of the District Forum insofar as for payment of Rs.2000/- towards differential amount of the maturity value calculated at the rate of interest in accordance with the notification and the amount arrived at computing the rate of interest on the basis of correction thereto made by the employees of the first opposite party, is liable to be set aside.
16. Insofar as the observation of the District forum that the second opposite party was negligent in not taking steps to send NSCs pledged with it by the complainant and caused delay of 11 days and the negligence of the first opposite party in retaining the NSCs and not making payment of the maturity value for a period of 14 days, does not warrant any interference nor does it suffer from any factual or legal infirmity.
17. The Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the slackness in discharge of the duties by the employees in public sector in Lucknow Development Authority vs. M.K.GuptaAIR 1994 SC 787 as under:
Today the issue thus is not only of award of compensation but who should bear the brunt. The concept of authority and power exercised by public functionaries has many dimensions. It has undergone tremendous change with passage of time and change in socioeconomic outlook. The authority empowered to function under a statute while exercising power discharges public duty. It has to act to subserve general welfare and common good. In discharging this duty honestly and bona fide, loss may accrue to any person. And he may claim compensation which may in circumstances be payable. But where the duty is performed capriciously or the exercise of power results in harassment and agony then the responsibility to pay the loss determined should be whose? In a modem society no authority can arrogate to itself the power to act in a manner which is arbitrary. It is unfortunate that matters which require immediate attention linger on and the man in the street is made to run from one end to other with no result. The culture of window clearance appears to be totally dead. Even in ordinary matters a common man who has neither the political backing nor the financial strength to match the inaction in public oriented departments gets frustrated and it erodes the credibility in the system. Public administration, no doubt involves a vast amount of administrative discretion which shields the action of administrative authority. But where it is found that exercise of discretion was mala fide and the complainant is entitled to compensation for mental and physical harassment then the officer can no more claim to be under protective cover. When a citizen seeks to recover compensation from a public authority in respect of injuries suffered by him for capricious exercise of power and the National Commission finds it duly proved then it has a statutory obligation to award the same.
18. In the light of the ratio laid in the aforementioned decision and taking into consideration of the delay caused in making payment of the maturity value, we uphold the relief granted by the District forum in regard to the interest awarded against the opposite parties no.1 and 2.
19. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed setting aside the amount of `2,000/- awarded against the opposite party no.1. The relief for interest awarded against the opposite parties is upheld. The parties shall bear their own costs. Time for compliance four weeks.
MEMBER MEMBER Dt.17.09.2012 KMK*