National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Sudarshan Kumar Sehgal vs Union Of India & Ors. on 26 March, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1062 OF 2009 (Against the Order dated 06/01/2009 in Appeal No. 818/2004 of the State Commission Haryana) 1. SUDARSHAN KUMAR SEHGAL S/o. Shri Gurditta Mal. R/o. 143-R. Model Town, Sonepat Haryana ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Through Superintendnt Head Post Office, Sonepat Sonepat Haryana 2. SUPERINTENDENT HEAD POST OFFICE Sonepat, District Sonepat Haryana 3. POST MASTER Head Post Office Sonepat District -Sonepat Haryana 4. SUB POST MASTER POST OFFICE, SECTOR-14 SONEPAT DISTRICT-SONEPAT HARYANA 5. CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL HARYANA CIRCLE DISTRICT-AMBALA HARYANA ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. Des Raj Wadhwa, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. R.V. Sinha, Advocate
Dated : 26 Mar 2015 ORDER
JUSTICE V.K. JAIN,PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)
1. The complainant along with his wife late Smt. Romesh Kumari opened two MIS accounts with the post office. His wife having died on 29-01-1999, intimation of the said death was given to the post office. The complainant also submitted a request for adding the names of his two sons namely Rajneesh Sehgal and Sunish Kumar Sehgal, in the aforesaid accounts, in place of the name of his wife. This, according to the complainant was done as per the advice given to him by the post office officials. The addition of the names of the sons of the complainant was duly allowed by the post office on 11-03-1999 i.e. just about 40 days after the death of the wife of the complainant. Interest for the period from 15-02-1999 to 15-03-1999 was also paid to them. In A/c No.58602 the entire interest was paid along with prescribed bonus till the maturity of the account. In A/c No.58045 interest was paid only till December 2001 and no payment of interest was made with effect from January 2002. Vide letter dated 22-02-2002 the complainant was informed that the Post Master of the Head Post Office, Sonepat had directed the Sub Post Master of the post office at Sector 14 of Sonepat where the said accounts had been opened, to recover the interest paid since January 1999 in A/c No.58045, on the ground that on death of Smt. Romesh Kumari the amount in the two accounts had exceeded the prescribed limit. Claiming the aforesaid action to be illegal besides deficiency in service the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint.
2. The complaint was resisted on the ground that it was due to a mistake of an official of the post office that the complainant was permitted to substitute the name of his wife by the names of his sons and there was no deficiency in the services rendered to him by the opposite parties.
3. The District Forum vide its order dated 03-03-2004 allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to treat the accounts as joint accounts in the name of the complainant and his sons and to withdraw the direction to recover interest which had been paid in the said accounts. The respondents were also directed to pay interest in Account No.58045 since January 2002 at the same rate at which interest has been given in the other account No.58062. The respondents were also directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.5,000/-. A direction was also given to the Chief Post Master General Haryana Circle to recover the compensation from the salary of the respondents Nos.2 and 3.
4. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum the respondents approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 06-01-2009 the State Commission allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved from dismissal of his complaint the complainant is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.
5. It is an admitted position that both, the A/c Nos.58045 as well as A/c No.58062 were in the joint names of the complainant and his wife, late Smt. Romesh Kumari. It is also an admitted position that on death of Smt. Romesh Kumari an intimation in this regard was promptly given to the respondents. It is also not in dispute that the respondents allowed substitution of the name of Smt. Romesh Kumari by the names of her sons namely Rajneesh Sehgal and Sunish Kumar Sehgal. After allowing the aforesaid substitution, interest in A/c. No.58062 was paid till the date the said account matured, whereas interest in A/c.No.58045 was paid till December 2001. Therefore, the only question which arises for consideration in this petition is as to whether the withdrawal of interest with effect from January 2002 was justified or not. The denial of interest to the complainant is based upon clause 15 of the Post Office Small Savings Scheme which reads as under:
"15. Status of joint MIS Account on the death of one of the depositors: If one of the depositors of a MIS account dies, the account will be treated as a single account in the name of the surviving depositor from the date of death of the said depositor when a report to this effect is received in the post office. The PM/SPM will ask the surviving depositor to withdraw the excess amount in excess of the limit prescribed for single depositor as this amount will not carry interest from the date of death of the joint depositor. The interest already paid on this excess amount will be recovered or adjusted. The account will be converted into a single account."
It would be seen from a perusal of the aforesaid clause contained in the Scheme that on the death of one of the depositors in a case of joint account, the post office was required to asked the surviving depositor to withdraw the amount which was in excess of the limit prescribed for a single depositor. However, in the present case not only the respondents failed to follow the obligation cast upon them under the Scheme by not asking the complainant to withdraw the amount in excess of the limit prescribed for a single depositor, it expressly allowed substitution of the name of his wife by the names of his sons. Had the post office performed its obligation under the Scheme and asked the complainant to withdraw the amount which was in excess of the limit prescribed for a single depositor he would have withdrawn the said excess amount and invested it elsewhere. In that case he would have been able to earn interest on the aforesaid amount by way of an alternative investment. By not asking to withdraw the excess amount and rather allowing the substitution in the account, the officials of the post office induced him to continue to retain the excess amount in the joint accounts. Having done so and taken advantage of utilizing the aforesaid excess money, the respondents cannot deny interest to the complainant on the said excess amount in the joint accounts. Not only would this be absolutely unjust, unfair and unreasonable, it would also be an act of deficiency in the services rendered to the depositor who, on the basis of the substitution allowed by the post office continued to retain the excess amount in the joint account instead of withdrawing the same and investing it in an alternative instrument. It would also be pertinent to note here that no breach of any statutory rule was involved in this case.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Post Master, Dargamitta H.P.O. Nellore Vs. Raja Prameelamma (Ms), 1998 (9) SCC 705. A perusal of the aforesaid decision would show that in the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court the rate of interest prescribed on National Savings Certificate at the relevant time was 11% per annum, having been so notified by the Government. On account of an inadvertent error on the part of the clerical staff the old rate of interest and the maturity value printed on the certificate was not corrected. The District Forum as well as the State Commission took the view that the post office was bound to pay the uncorrected maturity value of the certificates. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid decision of the State Commission and the District Forum the opposite parties in the complaint approached this Commission by way of a revision petition. This Commission ruled in favour of the complainant by a majority decision. Being dissatisfied, the opposite parties in the complaint approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of a special leave. Agreeing with the dissenting view taken by one of the members of this Commission, the appeal was allowed by the hon'ble Supreme Court. The dissenting Member was of the view that the rate of interest printed on the certificates being contrary to the terms notified by Government, the contract did not bind the said Government being unlawful and void and, therefore, this was not a case of deficiency in service. However, the facts of the present case are quite different. As noted earlier, clause 15 of the Scheme mandated the officials of the post office to ask the surviving depositor to withdraw the amount in excess of the limit prescribed for a single depositor. Thus, this was not a case of an inadvertent error but a case of gross negligence in performing the obligations cast upon the officials of the post office. What is more important is that had the post office officials performed their obligation under the Scheme by asking the complainant to withdraw the excess amount he would have invested the said excess amount in an alternative instrument and thereby earning interest by way of investment in the said alternative instrument. That was not the position in Post Master, Dargamitta(supra), where the only lapse committed by the officials of the post office was not to delete the old rate of interest and the old maturity value printed on the certificates which obviously had been printed before the rate of 11% per annum came to be notified by the Government with effect from 01-04-1987. Therefore, reliance on the aforesaid decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court is wholly misplaced.
7. The learned counsel for the respondents also relies upon the decision of this Commission in Capt. Vijay Vitthal Kulkarni & Anr. Vs. The Post & Telegraph Deptt.& Anr. FA No.290 of 2006 decided on 24-07-2006. A perusal of the aforesaid decision would show that in the aforesaid case, the complainants had opened three accounts depositing Rs.6,30,000/-. When the Scheme ended, he was informed that while interest would be credited in respect of two accounts it would not be payable in the third account being in violation of the norms of the scheme. Relying upon the decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court in Post Master, Dargamitta (supra) it was held that since the investment in the aforesaid account had exceeded the prescribed limit of Rs.4,08,000/-, no interest was payable in the third account. Again the facts are altogether different. In the aforesaid case, the depositor opened three accounts and deposited a sum of Rs.6,30,000/- at his own risk despite knowing that the limit prescribed at the relevant time was only Rs.4,08,000/-. On the other hand in the case before us the accounts were validly opened in the name of the complainant and his deceased wife. On the death of the wife of the complainant intimation in this regard was duly given to the post office. Not only did the post office fail to perform its obligation under the Scheme failing to ask the complainant to withdraw the excess amount it expressly allowed substitution of the name of the wife of the complainant by the names of her sons. Therefore, the facts are altogether different in the case before this Commission.
8. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned order to the extent it denies payment of interest to the complainant cannot be sustained. The revision petition is accordingly allowed and the respondents are directed to comply with the order passed by the District Forum with the modification that no compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case would be payable to the complainant. It is made clear that interest to the extent it has not been paid to the complainant will be paid at the rate prescribed in the Scheme till the date the accounts matured and thereafter at the rate of 9% per annum on the unpaid amount whether towards principal sum or towards interest. The order for recovering the interest for the period from January 1999 to December 2001 obviously stands set aside.
The revision petition stands disposed of.
......................J V.K. JAIN PRESIDING MEMBER