State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Union Of India & Ors. vs Mangat Ram & Ors. on 22 July, 2009
H
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
SHIMLA-9.
F.A. No. 259 of 2007
Decided on 22.7.2009.
1.
Union of India
through Secretary
Posts and Telegraph Department, New Delhi.
2. The
Post Master, Post Office
Dadahu, District Sirmour,
H.P. ....Appellana.
Versus
1.
Mangat Ram son of Sh. Om Parkash.
2.
Smt. Savita
Gupta, wife of Sh. Mangat Ram.
3.
Nikhil Aggarwal son of Sh. Mangat Ram
Gupta.
All residents of Village and P.O. Dadahu, Tehsil Nahan,
District Sirmour,
H.P. ..Respondents.
4. Smt. Rekha Aggarwal,
wife of Sh. Arun Kumar
Son of Sh. Ved Parkash, R/o Village Dadahu
Tehsil (Authorised agent of Post
Office).
Proforma respondent.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Honble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.), President.
Honble Mrs. Saroj
Sharma, Member.
Honble Mr. Chander
Shekher Sharma, Member.
Whether approved for reporting
?
For the Appellants. Mr.
Vijay Arora, Advocate. with Mr. Kewal
Ram,
Office Supervisor
in the office
of Supdt. Post Offices at Solan.
For the Respondents. None for respondent Nos. 1 to 3
Through
represented by Mr. Yudhvir
Singh Thakur,
Advocate.
Mr. Ashok Tyagi, Advocate vice
Mr. Viveka Nand, Advocate
for respondent No.4.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.) President.
1. Appellants are aggrieved from the order passed by District Forum, Shimla camp at Nahan, in Complaint No.104/2005, decided on 8.3.2007. While allowing the complaint of respondents No. 1 to 3, District Forum below ordered the appellants to regularize the recurring deposit accounts bearing Nos. 172669, 172947 and 172992 and 172969 respectively of the respondents 1 to 3 and at the same time to accept the instalments in respect of each respondent from respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 has been directed to pay Rs. 500/- as costs.
2. During the course of hearing, it was not disputed between the parties that there were recurring deposits accounts opended by the respondents No. 1 to 3 @ Rs. 1000/- per month by respondent No.1, Rs. 2500/- and Rs.
1000/- per month each in respect of her two accounts i.e. Account No. 172947 and 172992 by respondent No.2 and lastly @ Rs. 300/- by respondent No.3 for a period of 5 years. Further according to learned counsel for the parties that in case deposits had been made regularly without any break or default, then in 60 equated instalments, respondent No.1 would have deposited a sum of Rs. 60,000/- in 5 years, respondent No.2 in her account No. 172947 a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- and a sum of Rs. 60,000/- in her another account No. 172992 and similarly respondent No.3 a sum of Rs. 18,000/- during stipulated period. On these sums, respondents No.1 to 3 were to get interest prescribed for recurring deposit scheme on maturity.
3. Against a sum of Rs. 60,000/- respondent No.1 had admittedly deposited a sum of Rs. 34,000/-, respondent No.2 in her account No. 172947 a sum of Rs. 77,500/- against Rs.
1,50,000/-, in her another account No. 172992 a sum of Rs. 30,000/- against a sum of Rs. 60,000/- and similarly a sum of Rs. 9,300/- had been deposited by the respondent No.3 against a sum of Rs. 18,000/-. This was not disputed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3. On these sums, per Mr. Arora, appellants are ready and willing to pay Rs. 8,983/- as interest + post maturity interest of Rs. 3009/- to respondent No.1, Rs. 20,473/- + post maturity interest of Rs. 6,858/- to respondent No.2 in respect of her account No. 172947, Rs. 7,924/- + post maturity interest of Rs. 2655/- in case of her another account No. 172992 and likewise respondent No.3 will be paid Rs. 2,456/- as interest + post maturity interest of Rs. 822/-. Thus in all, respondent No.1 would get (Rs. 34,000/-+Rs. 8,983/-as interest + Rs. 3,009/- as post maturity interest) = Rs. 45,992/-, respondent No.2. (Rs. 77,500/- + Rs. 20,473/- + Rs. 6,858/-) = 1,04,831/- in respect of her account No. 172947, (Rs. 30,000/- + Rs. 7,924/- + Rs. 2,655/-) = Rs. 40, 579/- in respect of her another account No. 172992 and similarly respondent No.3 would get (Rs. 93,00/- + Rs. 2,456/- + Rs.
882/- = Rs. 12,578/-). Ordered accordingly.
4. So far direction regarding continuing the recurring deposits as noted hereinabove is concerned, no such directions could have been given in view of Rule 7 of the Post Offices Recurring Deposits Rules, 1981. This rule reads as under :-
(a) in rule 7, for sub-rules (1) and (2), the following sub-rules shall be substituted, namely :-(1)
If there are not more than four defaults in monthly deposits, the depositor may, as its option, extend the maturity period of the account by as many months as the number of defaults and deposit the defaulted instalments during the extended period.(2)
If there are more than four defaults, the account shall be treated as discontinued. Revival of the account shall be permitted only within a period of two months from the month of fifth default. Interest at the rate of ten paise for every five rupee of a defaulted instalment for each month of default shall also be paid alongwith such deposit in lump-sum and an account in which defaulted instalments are so deposited, shall not be treated as discontinued.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that there were numerous defaults in deposit of equated monthly instalments. In these circumstances as per rule, the account had to be treated as dis-continued. It is also not the case of respondent No.1 that he applied for grant of benefit of sub-rule (2) supra. Thus we are of the view that the District Forum below fell into error when it directed the appellants to regularize the recurring accounts as detailed in the impugned order and also to accept the instalments. Such direction in our opinion is contrary to the rules framed u/s 15 of the Government Saving Banks Act, 1873. Such direction to regularize the accounts and accept instalments could not have been issued, and therefore the order of District Forum below is liable to set aside. Ordered accordingly.
6. However, keeping in view the stand of Mr. Arora, we are of the view that respondent Nos.1 to 3 do not suffer at all in any manner because they would have got the maturity amount only after heaving deposited the 60 equated instalments. In the instant case the respondents No. 1 to 3 will be getting interest + post maturity interest alongwith amount deposited by them in their respective accounts. In these circumstances equities will be well adjusted between the parties.
However we feel that there is laxity on the part of respondent No.4 who was admittedly the saving bank agent to whom the money was given by respondent No.1 to 3 but she did not deposit it with appellant No.2 in time. In these circumstances while partly allowing this appeal it is ordered as under :-
a) in view of above discussion, the appellants are liable to pay to the respondents No. 1 to 3, the following amounts :-
Respondent No.1 :- Rs. 45, 992/-
(Rs. 34,000/- the amount deposited by him + Rs. 8,983/- towards interest + Rs. 3,009/- towards post maturity interest).
Respondent No. 2:- Rs. 1,04,831/-(Rs. 77,500/- amount deposited
(i) Account No. 172947 by her + Rs. 20,473/- towards interest Rs. 6,858/-
towards post maturity interest).
(ii) Account No.172992. Rs. 40, 579/-
(Rs. 30,000/- amount deposited by her + Rs.
7,924/- towards interest + Rs. 2,655 towards post maturity interest).
Respondent No.3. Rs. 12578/- (Rs. 9,300/- amount deposited by him + Rs.
2,456/- towards interest + Rs. 822/-
towards post maturity interest).
b) in addition to above, cost payable by respondent No.4 to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 is quantified at Rs. 1500/- instead of Rs. 500/- as ordered by the District Forum below ;
c) so far direction regarding regularization of saving bank accounts as ordered by the Distict Forum below is concerned, it is set aside, and
c) Subject to this modification, appeal is disposed of.
7. All interim orders passed from time to time shall stand vacated forthwith.
8. Learned counsel for the parties have undertaken to collect copy of this order free of cost from the Court Secretary as per Rules.
(Justice Arun Kumar Goel)Retd.
President (Saroj Sharma) Member (Chander Shekher Sharma) Member Suneera 22.7.2009