State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sr. Suptd. Of Post Office vs Pankaj Kansal on 29 August, 2017
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
CHANDIGARH.
1.First Appeal No.391 of 2017 Date of institution : 24.05.2017 Reserved on : 14.08.2017 Date of decision : 29.08.2017
1. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Near Mini Secretariat, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana.
2. Post Master, Lajpat Rai Post Office, Clock Tower, Ludhiana.
.......Appellants-Opposite Parties Versus
1. Pankaj Kansal and Sons, HUF, through Pankaj Kansal son of Shri Des Raj Kansal as Karta, 27 Mall Enclave, Mall Road, Ludhiana-141 001.
2. Pankaj Kansal son of Shri Des Raj Kansal, Karta of M/s Pankaj Kansal and Sons HUF, 27 Mall Enclave, Mall Road, Ludhiana- 141 001.
........Respondents-Complainants
2. First Appeal No.392 of 2017 Date of institution : 24.05.2017 Reserved on : 14.08.2017 Date of decision : 29.08.2017
1. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Near Mini Secretariat, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana.
2. Post Master, Lajpat Rai Post Office, Clock Tower, Ludhiana.
.......Appellants-Opposite Parties Versus First Appeal No. 391 of 2017 2
1. Des Raj Kansal and Sons, HUF, through Pankaj Kansal son of Shri Des Raj Kansal as Karta, 27 Mall Enclave, Mall Road, Ludhiana-141 001.
2. Pankaj Kansal son of Shri Des Raj Kansal, Karta of M/s Des Raj Kansal and Sons HUF, 27 Mall Enclave, Mall Road, Ludhiana-141 001.
........Respondents-Complainants 3. First Appeal No.394 of 2017 Date of institution : 25.05.2017 Reserved on : 14.08.2017 Date of decision : 29.08.2017
1. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Near Mini Secretariat, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana.
2. Post Master, Lajpat Rai Post Office, Clock Tower, Ludhiana.
.......Appellants-Opposite Parties Versus
1. Swatantar Kansal and Sons, HUF, through Amit Kansal son of Late Shri Swatantar Kansal as Karta, 27, Mall Enclave, Mall Road, Ludhiana-141 001.
2. Amit Kansal son of Late Shri Swatantar Pal Kansal, Karta of M/s Swatantar Kansal and Sons, HUF, 27 Mall Enclave, Mall Road, Ludhiana-141 001.
........Respondents-Complainants First Appeals against the orders dated 22.3.2017 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President First Appeal No. 391 of 2017 3 Present:-
For the appellants : Shri V.K. Arya, Advocate. For the respondents : Shri B.R. Rana, Advocate. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT:
All the above referred three First Appeals are being decided by this common order, as common questions of law and facts, except some minor variations, here and there, are involved in these appeals. The facts are taken from First Appeal No.391 of 2017. First Appeal No.391 of 2017:
2. This instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants-
opposite parties against the order dated 22.3.2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (in short, "District Forum"), vide which the complaint filed by the respondents/complainants under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "C.P. Act") was allowed and the appellants/opposite parties were directed to pay interest on the amount deposited by the complainant in his PPF account with them; besides ₹5,000/- as compensation and ₹5,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Forum. Facts of the complaint:
4. The relevant facts, which are necessary for disposal of the appeal, are to the effect that complainant Pankaj Kansal formed an HUF in the name and style of Pankaj Kansal and Sons. The said HUF consists of Mrs. Suman Kansal, Palak Kansal and Pulkit Kansal, wife, daughter and son respectively of the complainant. The complainant claiming to be the Karta of the HUF opened PPF First Appeal No. 391 of 2017 4 account bearing No.45377 dated 26.2.1997 in Lajpat Rai Market Branch Post Office at Ludhiana. Various amounts continued to be deposited in that account at different intervals. The lock period for the said PPF account was 15 years and it was to mature on 29.11.2012. The amount accrued along with interest upto that date was ₹4,92,663/-. Instead of closing the account the complainant decided to extend the same for further period of five years and the opposite parties readily extended the same with effect from 29.11.2012. The complainant deposited following amounts after the extension of the account:-
Date of Deposit Amount of Deposit Balance after this deposit 10.1.2013 ₹1,00,000/- ₹5,92,663/-
5.8.2013 ₹1,00,000/- ₹6,92,663/-
Interest for 2013- ₹57,362/- (Amount ₹8,50,025/-
2014 of interest credited
by the OPs)
9.6.2014 ₹1,00,000/- ₹8,50,025/-
Interest for 2014- ₹72,502/- (Interest ₹9,22,527/-
2015 credited by OPs) The opposite parties continued to make entries in the account book of the interest accrued thereon and the same were also made in the passbook supplied to the complainant. In the month of July 2015 the complainant visited the office of the opposite parties in connection with some other work when he was disclosed that the account had been wrongly extended. He will not be entitled to any interest on the same. Only the amount paid is payable to him and they advised the complainant to stop depositing the amount for further period. First Appeal No. 391 of 2017 5 Thereafter the opposite parties sought some clarifications also and the complainant issued e-mail dated 23.7.2015 to which no reply was given by the opposite parties. Thereafter again on 18.9.2015 the complainant personally approached the opposite parties and pleaded with them that they cannot refuse the payment of interest accrued upto date or at least till the amount has been paid. The opposite parties assured that this issue will be decided after consulting the higher authorities. However, vide cheque No.418836 dated 8.10.2015, opposite parties made payment of ₹7,51,467/- by deducting the interest amount of ₹2,15,595/-, which has accrued from 29.11.2012 to 8.10.2015. Since the complainant has been paid less amount of interest; as a result of which deficiency in service was alleged. Besides this the complainant claimed compensation for mental tension etc. and claimed litigation costs of ₹55,000/- and financial loss of ₹1,00,000/-.
Defence of the Opposite Parties:
5. The opposite parties filed joint written statement inter alia pleading therein that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious.
The complainant has suppressed the material facts with mala fide intention and the District Forum has no jurisdiction. It is averred in the reply that Union of India has passed an Act known as Public Provident Fund Act, 1968, which is social beneficial legislation with the aim and object to promote savings of the general public and under that Act, PPF Scheme, 1968 has been prepared. So, the service provided by the Union of India does not fall in the domain of First Appeal No. 391 of 2017 6 the C.P. Act, particularly when charges were not levied for providing services. Rather, it is claimed that the complainants are not 'consumers' due to which, jurisdiction of the District Forum was barred by law to entertain the complaint. However, it is admitted that PPF account No.45377 was opened in Lajpat Rai Market Branch Post Office on 26.2.1997 in the name of Pankaj Kansal and Sons, HUF. The complainant has approached them for extension of the account for the period of five years with effect from 29.11.2012. Government of India, vide notification published in official Gazette bearing No.G.S.R.-956(E) incorporated an amendment to the Public Provident Fund Scheme, 1968, for clarifying that account of PPF of HUF opened prior to 13.5.2005 shall be closed after expiry of 15 years from the end of the year, in which, the initial subscription was made. As per that amendment, the entire amount standing to the credit of the subscriber is to be refunded after making adjustment, if any, in respect of any interest due from the loans taken by the subscriber. After the year ending 31.3.2011, no new or the old HUF PPF account could be initiated or carried onwards. The complainant wrongly got extended the period after 31.3.2012 and as such, he is not entitled to interest on the deposit beyond the period of 1.4.2011. However, the PPF account of the complainant did show excess amount of interest w.e.f. 1.4.2011 to 31.3.2012 and as such, the complainant is liable to return and refund that excess amount. Rule 6 of the Public Provident Fund Scheme, 1968, deals with the closure of PPF accounts opened in contravention of Rules. That Rule First Appeal No. 391 of 2017 7 provides that the accounts cannot be opened by artificial/juridical persons and if opened, the account will be treated as invalid. The amount received from the subscriber cannot be treated as subscription under the PPF Scheme, 1968. Ordinarily, no interest accrues to the subscriber in such cases. The complainant was fully aware of the Rules and Regulations laid down by the Government of India and, as such, act of extending PPF account of HUF beyond 31.3.2011 is an act of nullity. The complainant cannot take benefit of his own wrong and, as such, he is not entitled to any interest on any amount. Government of India vide letter dated 13.12.2010 intimated all the Heads of Circles and Regions about the amendment in the PPF accounts in the name of HUF and, as such, liability on opposite parties cannot be fastened for the acts of omission and commission committed in violation of Rules. The extension of PPF is beyond the limits and after the closing of the earlier account. Therefore, extension was not permissible and the same was illegal. Denying all other allegations made in the complaint, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
Finding of the District Forum:
6. Both the sides produced evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned counsel on their behalf, allowed the complaint, vide impugned order. Hence, this appeal.
7. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides and have carefully gone through the records of the case. First Appeal No. 391 of 2017 8
Contentions of the Parties:
8. It was vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties that as per Notification dated 7.12.2010 circulated vide letter dated 13.12.2010, Ex.R-2, PPF account opened in the name of HUF prior to 13.5.2005 cannot be further extended and no further deposits can be accepted in such accounts after maturity but inadvertently the officials of the Post Office extended the account for another five years. Thereafter the complainant was made aware that it could not be extended and this amount cannot carry interest as provided under PPF Act, 1968. It was further contended that the District Forum failed to consider the evidence produced on the record by the opposite parties, which is in the form of the notification Ex.R-2, vide which the amendment was made in the scheme and a new proviso was added to sub paragraph-3 of paragraph-9 and as per that proviso, all the PPF accounts opened by HUF were to be closed at the end of 31.03.2011 and the amounts, standing to the credit of the subscribers, were to be refunded. As per that notification, the account of the complainant, which was opened in the name of HUF, was deemed to have been closed with effect from the said date and thereafter, no interest was to accrue to him on the amount outstanding in the account. The amount so standing to his credit, along with interest calculated upto that date, was paid to him; which totally absolves the opposite parties of their liability. The complaint has been allowed with interest First Appeal No. 391 of 2017 9 as applicable to PPF account by the District Forum contrary to the settled principle of law and relied upon the following judgments:-
i) judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 13.7.2011 passed in Civil Appeal No.4995 of 2006 (Arulmighu Dhandayudhapaniswamy Thirukoil, Palani v. The Director General of Post Offices & Ors.); and
ii) Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 19.5.2016 passed in LPA No.230 of 2016 (RAJESHWAR RAWAT @ RAJESH RAWAT v. STATE BANK OF INDIA & ANR.).
It was further contended that the impugned order cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.
9. On the other hand, it was vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the complainant that the complainant was not at fault and the fault is on the part of the opposite parties. He has specifically mentioned that he opened the account for HUF. There is no misrepresentation on the part of the complainant. It was for the officials of the opposite parties that they should have acted in accordance with law and they should have made aware the complainant that this account could not be extended. Once the Post Office authorities are at fault, they are responsible to pay interest as the amount has been utilized by them. They have not taken any action against the officials, who are at fault and who have extended the period of PPF account of the complainant. It was further contended that even if there was such a notification, the same was First Appeal No. 391 of 2017 10 never brought to the notice of the complainant and the officials of the opposite parties continued to collect the amounts from him and depositing that in his account even after 31.03.2011. As per the evidence produced by the opposite parties themselves, they were required to give due publicity to the notification, by displaying it at the public place and by bringing the same to the notice of the depositors. The same was never done. This clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part, for which the District Forum has suitably penalized them. He relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2014(4) RCR (Civil) 938 (M/s Bhagwati Vanaspati Traders v. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Meerut) and judgment of this Commission dated 19.11.2015 passed in FA No.703 of 2015 (Mangat Rai v. Post Master and another). There is no ground for upsetting the findings of the District Forum and appeal is liable to be dismissed.
Consideration of Contentions:
10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties.
11. Admittedly, the PPF account was opened by the complainant in the name of HUF as per the scheme of the Government. Cognizance can be taken of the fact that amendments were made in that scheme from time to time. One of such amendment was made, vide notification dated 7.12.2010, Ex.R-2 and the relevant portion of that notification is reproduced below:-
First Appeal No. 391 of 2017 11
"2. In the Public Provident Fund Scheme, 1968 in paragraph 9, in sub-paragraph (3), after the proviso, the following proviso shall be inserted, namely:-
'Provided further that an account opened on behalf of a Hindu Undivided Family prior to the 13th day of May, 2005, shall be closed after expiry of fifteen years from the end of the year in which the initial subscription was made and the entire amount standing at the credit of the subscriber shall be refunded, after making adjustments, if any, in respect of any interest due from the subscriber on loans taken by him. In the case of accounts opened on behalf of Hindu Undivided Family, where fifteen years from end of the year in which initial subscription was made, has already been completed, they shall also be closed at the end of the current year, i.e. the 31st day of March, 2011 and the entire amount standing at the credit of the subscriber shall be refunded, after making adjustments, if any, in respect of any interest due from the subscriber on loans taken by him."
11. It is very much clear from the document Ex.R-2 itself, that this notification was sent to different banks by the Reserve Bank of India, vide covering letter dated 27.12.2010. In that letter itself, it was mentioned that the contents of the notification be brought to the notice of the branches of the banks, operating PPF scheme and be displayed on the notice boards, for information of the PPF subscribers. No evidence was produced by the opposite parties that this notification was displayed on the notice board of the branch First Appeal No. 391 of 2017 12 concerned. No doubt, the opposite parties proved on record the affidavit Ex.R-A of Suresh Kumar, Superintendent, Post Office, Ludhiana but he nowhere deposed in his affidavit that this notification was displayed on the notice board of the bank, for bringing the contents thereof to the knowledge of the PPF subscribers, including the complainant. Even otherwise, this affidavit Ex.R-A is no affidavit in the eyes of law, as only the written reply filed by the opposite party, has been given the form of affidavit. The deponent has not specifically deposed about any fact therein.
12. The opposite parties owed a duty to the subscribers of PPF account and they failed to perform their duty, by not displaying the notification on the notice board of different branches.
13. There is no dispute regarding the fact that earlier PPF account was opened in the name of HUF on 26.2.1997 and the same matured on 29.11.2012 after a period of 15 years. On that account interest applicable to the PPF account was payable. The only issue is with regard to the extension of the PPF account with effect from 29.11.2012 and the amount paid thereafter. It is claimed that the amount should also fetch interest as applicable to the PPF. I am of the considered view that so far as the authority cited by the learned counsel for the opposite parties are concerned, they are not with regard to the HUF account. Rather these are with respect to the amounts deposited under the Government Savings Banks Act, 1873, i.e. time deposit accounts. So far as the authority of Hon'ble Delhi High Court is concerned, although it is with regard to the PPF Act, First Appeal No. 391 of 2017 13 1968 and the Scheme framed thereunder but the ratio is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In that Authority the subsequent notification issued by the Government under the Public Provident Fund Scheme 1968 has not been taken into consideration.
14. It would be apposite to reproduce Clause 6 of Part-II of the Important Orders of the Ministry of Finance (letter No.F.3(1)-PD/70 dated 24.9.1970 and D.G. Posts Letter No.1-23/75-SB/Vol. II dated 24.2.1982) regarding "closure of PPF accounts opened in contravention of Rules" produced on record as Ex.R-3, as under:-
"6. Closure of PPF accounts opened in contravention of Rules:- (1) The PPF accounts cannot be opened by artificial/juridical persons. As such, all accounts standing in the name of artificial/juridical persons have to be treated as invalid. The amounts received from these subscribers cannot be treated as "subscription" under the PPF Scheme, 1968 and were therefore to be repaid to the subscribers. Ordinarily no interest would accrue to the subscribers in such cases. (2) However, having regard to the fact that accounts in the name of artificial/juridical persons had been opened in some cases due to confusion about the distinction between, "individuals" and "persons" both on the part of subscribers and the deposit offices and the fact that the amounts so received actually remained with Government, it has been decided that interest on these accounts may be paid up to the date of refund at the prevailing POSB rates. Debits on the accounts of First Appeal No. 391 of 2017 14 these payments may be raised against Government in the usual manner. The subscribers may be told that, as their accounts are not in the names of individual, the moneys tendered by them cannot be accepted as subscription and as such are being refunded to them with interest calculated on a ex-gratia basis."
A perusal of the same would reveal that HUF cannot open the account under the PPF Act and, as such, this account has been incorrectly extended after the expiry date. The expiry date of the PPF account of the complainant was 29.11.2012 i.e. after the completion of 15 years. The amount of ₹4,92,663/- including accrued interest was outstanding in that PPF account upto 29.11.2012 because it was validly opened account on that day and there was no condition that HUF cannot open such an account. The said instructions have come subsequently but certainly before 29.11.2012. Thereafter the account has been extended which was contrary to the instructions and the clause 6 reproduced above. A perusal of the above reproduced clause 6(2) reveals that after the account is opened in the name of artificial/juridical persons, as in the present case, in the name of HUF, this appears to have been done under confusion about the distinction between the individual and the person both on the part of the subscriber and the Post Office. It is specifically mentioned that the amount so received actually remained with the Government. It has been specifically mentioned in this paragraph that it has been decided that the interest on such First Appeal No. 391 of 2017 15 accounts may be paid up to the date of refund at the prevailing Post Office Savings Bank rates.
15. The complainant proved on record the passbook of the account, as Ex.C-1. Entries thereof make it clear that the interest on the amount lying deposited in this PPF account was calculated for the year 2012-2013 and that interest amounting to ₹41,196/- was credited to his account. On 10.1.2013 the complainant deposited ₹1,00,000/- and another ₹1,00,000/- on 5.8.2013. Thereafter the interest was calculated for the year 2013-2014 and that interest amounting to ₹57,362/- was credited to his account. Thereafter ₹1,00,000/- was deposited on 9.6.2014 and further interest of ₹72,502/- for the year 2014-2015 was credited to his account. The total amount has been shown as ₹9,22,527/-. However, the opposite parties paid the sum of ₹7,51,467/-, vide cheque dated 8.10.2015 after deducting the amount of interest. That interest amounting to ₹2,15,595/- is being claimed by the complainant as less payment. It cannot be said to be less payment, by virtue of the notification. However, the opposite parties did not refund the amount immediately after the closing of the account and that amount remained lying deposited for two years. Moreover, the complainant deposited more amounts thereafter. The question arises, whether for this deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant is entitled to any interest? Similar matter came up for consideration before the Hon'ble National Commission in (Sr. Supdt. of Post Office, Amritsar & Anr. Vs. Ashok Kumar, HUF) (I) (2011) CPJ 41 First Appeal No. 391 of 2017 16 (NC). In that case, like the present one, the complainant had opened PPF account in the name of HUF and as on 13.05.2008, an amount of Rs.9,74,664/-, including that of the principal and interest accrued thereon, was standing in that account. However, on maturity of the scheme, the opposite parties paid only Rs.8,02,582/-, which fell short of the maturity amount by Rs.1,72,082/-. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant filed the complaint, seeking the payment of the said amount of Rs.1,72,082/-, along with compensation and interest. His claim was resisted by the opposite parties, on the ground that the Govt. of India stopped continuance of PPF account in favour of HUF with effect from 31.12.2005 and, as such, the complainant was not entitled to any interest after that date. The District Forum accepted the complaint, by overruling the contentions of the opposite parties, and granted the substantial relief to the complainant, by directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,72,082/-, along with compensation. However, the State Commission in appeal, by taking notice of the decision of the Hon'ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.2180 of 2004 (Sr. Post Master Vs. Arvind Industries), held that the complainant was entitled for interest @ 6% per annum. Aggrieved by that finding, the opposite parties preferred the revision before the Hon'ble National Commission. It was held in that revision that the State Commission, taking most pragmatic view, held that a balance is to be struck between the two extreme views on the basis of equitable justice, as neither interest would be payable at permissible rate of PPF, nor at First Appeal No. 391 of 2017 17 Savings Bank rate, and that the award of interest @ 6% per annum on the deposits made after 31.12.2005 was most equitable and rationale. That finding of the State Commission was upheld.
16. In Mangat Rai's case (supra) another Bench of this Commission while awarding 6% interest in such like cases has observed in para nos.9 and 10 as under:-
"9. It has been argued by the counsel for the complainant that interest has been declined to the appellant/complainant after 31.03.2012 on the plea that it was an HUF account opened before 13.05.2005 and according to SB Order No. 23/2010 vide letter No. 32- 01/2010-SBdated 13.12.2010 issued by OPs. However, OPs never followed these instructions in its true spirit. In case, there were instructions, then the amount so deposited by the complainant after 31.03.2012 should not have been accepted or intimation should have been given to the complainant to close the account so that he could close his account as on 31.03.2012. In support of his contention he has relied upon the judgment passed by the State Commission, Tamil Nadu in IV (2010) CPJ 201 "Senior Postmaster, Head Post Office, Thanjavur Versus G. Nalini & Anr." wherein it was observed that having enjoyed benefits of amount deposited by the complainant, OP is bound to pay the interest as per the agreed rate. However the Hon'ble National Commission First Appeal No. 391 of 2017 18 in judgment titled "Sr. Supdt. Of Post Office, Amritsar & Anr. Vs. Ashok Kumar (HUF)" I (2011) CPJ 41, in that case, the complaint was allowed by the District Forum, however the State Commission had held that the complainant was entitled to interest @ 6%. It was observed that balance has to be stuck between the parties. Accordingly, award of the interest @ 6 % per annum on the deposit made thereafter was allowed. In another judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court 1998(9) SCC 706 "Postmaster, Dargamitta H.P.O., Nellore versus Raja Prameeelamma (Ms.)", in that case, rate of interest payable on NSC was reduced from a particular date, which was notified by the Govt. of India. However, subsequent to the notification clerical staff of the Post Office did not correct the old rate of interest. It was held that such inadvertent act on the part of the staff of the Post Office does not amount to deficiency in service. Similarly, the staff of the Post Office continued to receive payment on discontinued PPF Account beyond 31.3.2012, therefore, an inadvertent act on the part of the OPs does not amount to deficiency in services.
10. In the present case, the PPF account (HUF) was to be discontinued after 31.03.2012 and the interest has been paid up to that date but the staff of Ops received a subscription of that account in the year 2013-14 and First Appeal No. 391 of 2017 19 2014-2015 but failed to give any interest on the deposited amount. No doubt that inadvertent act on the part of staff of OPs may not amounted to deficiency in services but they have utilised the amount of the complainant, therefore, to strike the balance, it is appropriate to allow Interest @ 6% beyond 31.03.2012 till the date of actual payment. The District Forum had dismissed the complaint merely because of the fact that as per notification, the account was to be closed, therefore, the complainant was not entitled to any interest without appreciating the fact that the amount was utilized by OPs during that period. In these circumstances, the impugned order is not legally sustainable."
17. Otherwise also in view of the circular issued with regard to the accounts which have been opened due to confusion and misunderstanding, certainly the amount remained with the Government and has been utilized by the Post Office Department for almost three years after the earlier maturity date of the account. In view of para 6(2) of subsequent notification, reproduced above, that amount will also carry interest at the Post Office Savings Bank rate, which I assess at the rate of 6% per annum from 29.11.2012 till the date of payment.
18. Accordingly this appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order passed by the District Forum is modified. So far as the rate of interest is concerned, the same will be at the rate of 6% per annum First Appeal No. 391 of 2017 20 from 29.11.2012 till the date of payment. However, the amount of compensation and litigation expenses will remain the same.
19. The appellants had deposited a sum of ₹25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. They deposited another sum of ₹86,852/-,vide receipt dated 20.7.2017. Both these sums, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the District Forum, after the expiry of 45 days of the sending of certified copy of the order to the parties. The complainants may approach the District Forum for the release of the due amount as per this order and the District Forum may pass the appropriate order in this regard. First Appeal No.392 of 2017:
20. In view of the findings recorded in FA No.391 of 2017, this appeal is also partly allowed in the same terms.
21. The appellants had deposited a sum of ₹25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. They deposited another sum of ₹94,224/-,vide receipt dated 20.7.2017. Both these sums, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the District Forum, after the expiry of 45 days of the sending of certified copy of the order to the parties. The complainants may approach the District Forum for the release of the due amount as per this order and the District Forum may pass the appropriate order in this regard. First Appeal No.394 of 2017:
22. In view of the findings recorded in FA No.391 of 2017, this appeal is also partly allowed in the same terms. First Appeal No. 391 of 2017 21
23. The appellants had deposited a sum of ₹25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. They deposited another sum of ₹1,54,388/-,vide receipt dated 20.7.2017. Both these sums, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the District Forum, after the expiry of 45 days of the sending of certified copy of the order to the parties. The complainants may approach the District Forum for the release of the due amount as per this order and the District Forum may pass the appropriate order in this regard.
(JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT August 29, 2017 Bansal