National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Senior Superintendent Of Post Offices & ... vs M/S. Pankaj Kansal & Sons, Huf & Anr. on 13 December, 2017
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3578 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 29/08/2017 in Appeal No. 391/2017 of the State Commission Punjab) 1. SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES & ANR. NEAR MINI SECRETARIAT FEROZEPUR ROAD LUDHIANA 2. THE POST MASTER LAJPAT RAI POST OFFICE CLCOK TOWER LUDHIANA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. M/S. PANKAJ KANSAL & SONS, HUF & ANR. THROUGH PANKAJ KANSAL S/O SH. DES RAJ KANSAL AS KARTA 27 MALL ENCLAVE, MALL ROAD LUDHIANA - 1410001 2. PANKAJ KANSAL S/O SH. DES RAJ KANSAL KARTA OF M/S PANKAJ KANSAL AND SONS HUF, 27 MALL ENCLAVE MALL ROAD LUDHIANA - 141001 ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 3579 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 29/08/2017 in Appeal No. 392/2017 of the State Commission Punjab) WITH
IA/18720/2017(Stay),IA/18721/2017(Excemption of file typed copies of documents),IA/18722/2017(Exemption from filing the Certified Copy) 1. SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES & ANR. NEAR MINI- SECRETARIAT, FEROZEPUR ROAD, LUDHIANA PUNJAB 2. THE POST MASTER, LAJPAT RAI POST OFFICE, CLOCK TOWER LUDHIANA PUNJAB ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. M/S. DES RAJ KANSAL & SONS, HUF & ANR. THROUGH PANKAJ KANSAL S/O SH. DES RAJ KANSAL, AS KARTA, 27 MALL ENCLAVE, MALL ROAD, LUDHIANA-1410001 PUNJAB 2. PANKAJ KANSAL, S/O LATE SH.DES RAJ KANSAL KARTA OF M/S DES RAJ AND SONS, HUF, 27 MALL ENCLAVE MALL ROAD, LUDHIANA - 141001 PUNJAB ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 3580 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 29/08/2017 in Appeal No. 394/2017 of the State Commission Punjab) WITH IA/18725/2017(Stay),IA/18726/2017(Excemption of file typed copies of documents),IA/18727/2017(Exemption from filing the Certified Copy) 1. SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES & ANR. NEAR MINI - SECTETARIAT FEROZEPUR ROAD LUDHIANA 2. THE POST MASTER LAJPAT RAI POST OFFICE, CLOCK TOWER LUDHIANA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. M/S. SWATANTAR KANSAL & SONS, HUF & ANR. THROUGH AMIT KANSAL S/O SH. SWATANTAR KANSAL AS, KARTA 27 MALL ENCLAVE, MALL ROAD LUDHIANA - 1410001 2. AMIT KANSAL S/O LATE SH. SWATANTAR KANSAL KARTA OF M/S SWATANTAR AND SONE, HUF, 27 MALL ENCLAVE MALL ROAD LUDHIANA - 141001 ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN,PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. M. SHREESHA,MEMBER For the Petitioner : Dr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, Advocate in all the RPs For the Respondent :
Dated : 13 Dec 2017 ORDER Challenge in these three Revision Petitions, by the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana and Post Master, Lajpat Rai Post Office, Clock Tower, Ludhiana, the Opposite Parties in the Complaints, is to a common order dated 29.08.2017, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Chandigarh (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeals No. 391, 392 and 394 of 2017. By the said order, while affirming the finding arrived at by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Ludhiana (for short "the District Forum") in its orders, all dated 22.03.2017, in Consumer Complaints No. 739/2015, 738/2015 and 35/2016, to the effect that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioners herein in not paying any interest on the amounts deposited by the Respondents/Complainants in the Public Provident Fund Accounts, opened by them in the names of their respective Hindu Undivided Families (HUFs), the State Commission has reduced the rate of interest from 9% p.a., as payable on the deposits made in the said accounts, to 6% p.a. For affirming the afore-noted finding, the State Commission has drawn support from the decision of this Commission in Revision Petition No. 2180 of 2004 (Sr. Post Master v. Arvind Industries), wherein it had been held that a similarly situated account holder was entitled to interest @ 6% p.a., and not at the normal rate of interest payable on such deposits.
2. Ld. Counsel appearing for the Petitioners submits that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhagwati Vanaspati Traders v. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Meerut, (2015) 1 SCC 617, the view taken by the Fora below deserves to be reversed.
3. Having carefully perused the said judgment, we are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the Ld. Counsel. In our view, the said decision, infact, upholds the view taken by this Commission in the afore-noted decision as also in a subsequent decision, dated 15.07.2015, in Revision Petition No. 1679 of 2015 (Chief Post Master General & 2 Ors. V. Govarmal Chhabaldas Israni). In the said decisions, it has been held that since the acceptance of the deposits in the accounts in question was clearly a mistake on the part of the officials of the Post Office, the Complainants could not be made to suffer on account of the same, more so, when the money deposited in such accounts always remained in the coffers of the Petitioners and used by them. It has been observed that if there was some technical hitch in the opening of such accounts, the Post Office ought not to have opened and continued such accounts and should have returned the amounts to the depositors. In those cases, the Post Offices were directed to pay interest to the depositors @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the Complaints. A similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhagwati Vanaspati Traders (Supra). It has been authoritatively held that the Postal Authorities, having permitted the Complainant in that case to purchase the NSC in the year 1995, could not have legitimately raised a challenge of irregularity after the maturity and when the authorities concerned had issued a certificate, which they could not have issued, they cannot be allowed to enrich themselves by retaining the deposit made, albeit when the transaction was sham or wholly illegal, which, like in that case, is not the case here.
4. In view of the aforegoing, we do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order, warranting our interference in a Limited Revisionary Jurisdiction. Consequently, being bereft of any merit, the Revision Petitions are dismissed in limine.
......................J D.K. JAIN PRESIDENT ...................... M. SHREESHA MEMBER