National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Chief Post Master General & 2 Ors. vs Govarmal Chhabaldas Israni on 15 July, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1679 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 12/11/2014 in Appeal No. 1944/2013 of the State Commission Gujarat) 1. CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL & 2 ORS. STATE OF GUJARAT MAIN POST OFFICE, SALAPAS ROAD, GUJARAT CIRCLE, MIRZAPUR AHMEDABAD-390001 GUJARAT 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES SHRI SABARKANTHA DIVISION IDAR ROAD, HIMMAT NAGAR SABARKANTHA GUJARAT 3. POST MASTER MODASA POST OFFICE P.O. TA. MODASA DIVISION SABARKANTHA HIMMAT NAGAR GUJARAT ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. GOVARMAL CHHABALDAS ISRANI R/O MODASA AT 53, ALANKAR SOCIETY, SHAMALAJI ROAD MODASA SABARKANTHA GUJARAT ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjiv K. Saxena, Advocate & Mr. R. Mishra, Advocate For the Respondent :
Dated : 15 Jul 2015 ORDER
1. These Revision Petitions, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), have been filed by the Chief Post Master General, State of Gujarat, and its two Associates, the Opposite Parties in the Complaints, against three orders, all dated 12.11.2014, passed by the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Ahmedabad (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeals No. 1940, 1941 and 1944 of 2013. The said Appeals had been filed by the Petitioners herein against three orders, all dated 24.04.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Sabarkantha (for short "the District Forum"), in Complaints No.175 of 2012, 174 of 2012 and 176 of 2012, preferred by the Complainants, the Respondents herein. The District Forum, while partly allowing the Complaints, had directed the Petitioners to pay certain amounts, viz., ₹3,34,000/-, ₹6,24,000/- and ₹1,81,500/- respectively in these Revision Petitions with interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of filing of the Complaints, as also ₹3000/- as litigation expenses in each of the cases. By the impugned orders, while partly allowing the Appeals, the State Commission has reduced the amounts as well as rate of interest to be paid on the said amounts to the Complainants, in terms of the orders of the District Forum and, accordingly, directed the Petitioners to pay ₹2,20,500/-, ₹4,09,500/- and ₹1,21,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of the respective Complaints.
2. Succinctly put, the facts giving rise to the present Revision Petitions, as culled out from the Complaints, involving similar issue, are that:
2.1 The Respondents/Complainants are three retired Senior Citizens. In the year 2005, by opening their respective accounts with the Petitioners under the Scheme known as "Senior Citizen Savings Scheme-2004", introduced by the Central Government, they had invested ₹7,00,000/-, ₹13,00,000/- and ₹4,00,000/- respectively, with the Petitioners. The said accounts were operative for a period of five years and the interest accrued thereon was being regularly paid by the Petitioners. Though in the year 2010 the investment period was extended by the Petitioners on the request of the Complainants, vide their letter dated 03.07.2010, the Petitioners intimated the Complainants that instead of writing the name of their spouse, the name of either their grandson or daughter-in-law was mentioned by mistake of the officers of the Petitioners and, therefore, the accounts had been opened against the conditions, governing the Scheme, and, hence, due to the said reason, as pointed out during the Audit inspection, the interest paid to them was liable to be returned immediately. When the Complainants approached the Petitioners for rectification of the alleged wrong entry, their request was not acceded to. Instead, the Complainants were informed that in case the interest was not returned back, recovery proceedings would be initiated against them. On 09.07.2010, without the consent of the Complainants, the Petitioners, closed the aforesaid accounts; deducted the amounts of ₹3,15,000/-, ₹5,85,000/- and ₹1,81,500/- respectively paid to them as interest during the aforesaid investment period of five years and returned the balance principal amounts to them.
2.3 In this background, three Complaints came to be filed before the District Forum, inter alia, praying for a direction to the Petitioners to pay to the Complainants the amounts, unauthorizedly deducted, along with 12% interest from 01.08.2010 till realization as also ₹50,000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment in each case.
3. Upon consideration of rival contentions and the evidence adduced before it by the parties, the District Forum came to the conclusion that the Postal Authorities having opened the accounts five years ago and having accepted the deposits, they cannot be permitted to deduct the interest already paid. Inter alia, observing that, on objection being raised by the Audit department that the account could be opened by the Complainant(s), jointly with his wife and not with grandson or daughter-in-law, at best they could have closed the account, but could not demand the interest already paid, the District Forum held that the Complaints were liable to be partially accepted and, accordingly, it directed the Petitioners to pay ₹3,34,000/-, ₹6,24,000/- and ₹1,81,500/- respectively to the Complainants in these Revision Petitions, with interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of the filing of the Complaints, as also ₹3000/- as litigation expenses in each case.
4. Aggrieved, the Petitioners preferred their Appeals before the State Commission.
5. On reappraisal of the evidence, the State Commission observed that though, technically, the accounts opened by the Complainants were irregular, yet the Petitioners could not deny payment of interest on the amounts deposited by the Complainants. The Petitioners were themselves careless at the time of opening the accounts; the amounts deposited by the Complainants had been used by the Postal Department for five years; and when they came to know about the irregularity in the opening of the accounts on the basis of an Audit inspection, without giving any opportunity of hearing to the Complainants, they unilaterally deducted the interest paid out of the principal amounts deposited by the Complainants. Consequently, while affirming the decision of the District Forum on merits, the State Commission partly allowed the Appeals and reduced the relief granted by the District Forum in the manner, indicated above.
6. Still not satisfied with the orders passed by the State Commission, the Postal Department and its functionaries are before us in these Revision Petitions.
7. It is pointed out by the office that these Revision Petitions are barred by limitation, inasmuch as there is a delay of 137-138 days in filing the same.
Since all the Revision Petitions arise out of identical orders and similar applications, praying for condonation of the aforesaid delay, have been filed along with the same, for the sake of convenience, we propose to consider the prayer with reference to the explanation furnished in the application filed in Revision Petition No. 1677 of 2015. In paragraphs 3 to 12 of the said application, the explanation furnished is as under:
"3. It is submitted that the order dated 12.11.2014 of hon'ble state commission in appeal no. 1940/2013 was received by the concerned madosa post office on 18.11.2014, and the post office on the same date referred the matter to circle office Ahd-1 for consideration and appropriate directions.
4. On 01.12.2014, files were referred to seek an opinion on the future course of action and the counsel vide his opinion dated 05.12.2014 opined that it was not a fit case to challenge in higher forum.
5. The aforesaid opinion was submitted on 09.12.2014 on which some queries were raised by circle office Ahmedabad on 17.12.2014, and thereafter the files were placed before all concerned authorities including the director general (DG) on whose instructions an opinion was sought from department of legal affairs (Branch Sectt.), ministry of law & justice Mumbai.
6. The department of legal affairs gave its opinion and the said opinion was received on or about 16.02.2015 opining that the present case may not be a good case to challenge before this Hon'ble commission, however, it advised that the department may approach the main secretariat of ministry of law and justice at New Delhi.
7. Finally, decision to challenge the order dated 12.11.2014 was taken and vide letter dated 25.03.2015 the litigation branch of Hon'ble Delhi High Court, Department of Legal Affairs was requested to appoint the counsel.
8. On 27.03.2015, the present counsel was appointed.
9. The matter was discussed with counsel, who upon going through with the files, asked the department to provide English translation of the Gujarati documents.
10. It is submitted that upon the requirement of the counsel documents in Gujarati were translated into English and the English translation was provided to the counsel on 25.04.2015.
11. In addition, some pleadings of the forums below like appeal were not available with the counsel, therefore, the same was also provided to the counsel on or about 15.05.2015.
12. It is submitted that considerable time was consumed in complying with the mandatory administrative formalities to put up the case papers in orders before the concerned authorities for needful instructions, seeking opinion from counsel, seeking opinion from department of legal affairs, translation of documents into English and briefing of counsel.
(Emphasis supplied)"
8. We have heard learned counsel for the Petitioners.
9. In our view, the explanation furnished by the Petitioners is far from being satisfactory. Admittedly, the copy of the impugned order had been received by the Petitioners on 18.11.2014 and on the same date the matter had been referred to the Petitioners' Circle Office in Ahmedabad, but the relevant papers were forwarded to the Advocate after two weeks, who, vide his opinion dated 05.12.2014, opined that it was not a fit case to challenge the order in the higher Forum. However, in order to have yet another opinion, the Petitioners' Circle Office placed the matter before the authorities concerned, including the Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law and Justice, on 17.12.2014, but the said Department took almost two months in rendering its opinion, whereby it again advised that it might not be a good case to challenge before this Commission. However, yet again, after a lapse of over a month, the Petitioners took a final decision to challenge the impugned orders and referred the matters to the Litigation Branch, Department of Legal Affairs at Delhi High Court for appointing a Counsel to pursue the matter. Though on 27.03.2015 the present Counsel had been appointed to take necessary action in the matter and the affidavit, required to be filed in support of the Revision Petitions, was prepared and attested on 25.06.2015, yet the said Counsel took more than three months from the date of his appointment to file the present Revision Petitions. The said delay is sought to be condoned on the specious plea that it all occurred because of mandatory administrative formalities, requirement of seeking legal opinion, translation of documents in vernacular and briefing of the Counsel.
10. The question of delay by the Government Departments in prosecuting the cases has been engaging the attention of the Courts. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority [(2011) 14 SCC 578], dealing with the issue at hand, has observed as follows:
"It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer foras."
10.1 Recently, in Postmaster General and Ors. V. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. [(2012) 3 SCC 563], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to observe as under:
"28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody, including the Government.
29. In our view, it is right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bona fide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few."
11. We feel that despite the afore-extracted observations in Living Media India Ltd. (supra), in the case of the Petitioner Department itself, the Petitioners have still not learnt their lesson and continue to function in the same archaic manner. The casual approach and lethargy on their part is writ large. We have no hesitation in observing that the explanation furnished is an example of indifferent and lax attitude of a government instrumentality and its functionaries. In our opinion, the Petitioners have failed to make out a sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the Revision Petitions. For all these reasons, we are not inclined to condone an inordinate delay of 137-138 days in filing of the present Revision Petitions, which is over and above the period of 90 days, allowed under Regulation-14 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005, to file a Revision Petition, more so, when there were two legal opinions, including that of the Ministry of Law and Justice, opining that it might not be a good case for being challenged before this Commission. We feel that in light of the said opinions, condonation of such an inordinate unexplained delay would not only amount to sheer wastage of public money and valuable judicial time but would also be subjecting the Complainants, who, on deposit of their hard earned money with the Petitioners in 2005, are suddenly told that the said deposits would not earn any interest as there was technical objection on the part of their Audit Section, and are still waiting for justice.
12. On merits also, we feel that these Revision Petitions deserve to be dismissed. By opening the accounts in question under the Scheme with the Petitioners in the year 2005, the Complainants had invested/deposited their hard earned money with them for a period of five years. On expiry of the said period, the investment period had been extended by the Petitioners in the year 2010, though at the request of the Complainants. Even after lapse of a long period, the Petitioners were not aware that these accounts were irregular and had been opened in contravention with the Senior Citizens Savings Scheme Rules, 2004, inasmuch as instead of making the wife as joint depositor, grandson and daughter-in-law were shown as joint depositors. It was only after an Audit inspection that the Petitioners came to know about the said irregularity. In our view, since it was clearly a mistake on the part of the Petitioners, the Complainants cannot be made to suffer on account of the same, more so, when the money deposited remained in the coffers of the Petitioners. If there was some technical hitch in the said accounts, the Petitioners ought not to have opened the said accounts in the year 2005 and returned the amounts deposited by the Complainants as not acceptable under the Scheme. Under the circumstances, the direction by the Fora below for refund the amounts retained by the Petitioners, initially paid as interest to the Complainants, with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the Complaints cannot be held to be unreasonable, warranting interference in exercise of our limited Revisionary Jurisdiction under the Act.
13. Consequently, the Revision Petitions are dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay as well as on merits.
......................J D.K. JAIN PRESIDENT ...................... M. SHREESHA MEMBER