National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Senior Post Master & Anr. vs Riddhi J. Bhatia on 19 November, 2018
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1143 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 19/01/2017 in Appeal No. 638/2016 of the State Commission Gujarat) 1. SENIOR POST MASTER & ANR. NAVRANGPURA HEAD POST OFFICE, AHMEDABAD-380009 GUJARAT 2. ASSISTANT POSTMASTER, NAVRANGPURA HEAD POST OFFICE, AHMEDABAD-380009 GUJARAT ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. RIDDHI J. BHATIA C-1/21, C-BLOCK GOYAL INTERCITY DRIVE IN ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380054 GUJARAT ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Anil Pawar, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Jawahar S Bhatia, Attorney-cum-father of
respondent
Dated : 19 Nov 2018 ORDER
JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA, PRESIDING MEMBER
By this common order I propose to dispose off the above two revision petitions arising out of common order of the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ( in short, the State Commission) passed in Appeal Nos. 637 and 638 of 2016 both dated 19.01.2017, since common question of law and facts are involved in both the revision petitions.
2. The brief facts of the case are that Sunita J Bhatia opened a PPF account no. 2499 in her name with the Post Office / Petitioner on 08.04.2016. On the same day, she also opened separate PPF account no. 2500 as guardian of her minor daughter Riddhi J Bhatia, date of birth being 18.08.1988. Both the accounts were to mature after 15 years. During this period, she had invested the money as per rules in both the accounts. However, on maturity, her entitled money was withheld by the petitioner / opposite party. She was informed vide a letter that there was an audit objection. In the complaint, the respondent / complainant had alleged that non payment of her PPF amount on maturity and withholding it for no valid reason was deficiency in service. She had alleged that at the time when had opened the accounts and deposited the money for 15 years, no objection was taken by the Petitioners and it was only when petitioners had to return the money that the objection was raised.
3. The Petitioners / opposite party in the written statement took the stand that maximum limit of deposit in PPF account was Rs.60,000/- per year for the year 2001-02 and from the year 2002-2003 to 2010 - 2011, maximum limit of investment was Rs.70,000/- per year. It was the stand of the petitioners that as per the guidelines issued by the Government Smt. Sunita J Bhatia could not have invested more than the permissible maximum limit in both the accounts. This act was, therefore, treated illegal and additional amount was, therefore, not eligible for interest. It is submitted that amount was not paid to the complainant as per the rules.
4. Evidences were led in the District forum and the District Forum allowed the complaint.
5. The order of the District Forum was challenged in appeal by the Petitioners before the State Commission in Appeal No. 637 of 2016 and 638 of 2016, whereby their appeals were partly allowed.
6. The impugned order of the State Commission has been challenged in the present revision petitions on the ground that as per POSB Manual Volume I Rule 152 (iii) of PPF accounts" any individual can subscribe to the PPF account on his own behalf or on behalf of a minor of as a guardian any amount in multiples of Rs.50/- not less than Rs.500/- and more than Rs.70,000/- in a year.
7. It is contended and argued that maximum limit was combined limit for a person's PF account whether it was in his name or in the name of his minor. It is also contended and argued that limit of subscription in PPF account was revised from time to time i.e. Rs.60,000/- up to financial year 2001-2002. It was raised to Rs.70,000/- from financial year 2002-2003 to 2010-2011. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on one notification GSR 908 ( E ) dated 06.12.2000 and argues that limit of deposits of Rs.70,000/- in a year by an individual in his self account and accounts opened by him on behalf of his minor of whom he is the guardian is combined under rule 3 (1) of the Scheme. It is submitted that the fact that money was deposited in excess by the respondents was noticed only during the local audit inspection on 19.12.2012. It was found that excess amount of Rs.4,23,000/- had been deposited and excess interest worth Rs.4,76,135/- has been calculated. It is submitted that respondents are not liable to any interest on the excess amount made by them. Learned counsel has also relied on the clarification issued vide MOF (DEA) letter no.F.3(1)/PD/70 dated 24.09.1970 and N S C Nagpur letter No.12235/Tech/PPF/20/03/98 dated 20.07.1998 which states that contribution in excess of Rs.70,000/- during a year will be treated as an irregular subscription and will not carry any interest and would be refunded to the subscriber without any interest. It is argued that respondents, therefore, are not entitled to any interest on the excess amount paid by them. It is submitted that impugned orders have been passed against the said statutory provisions and the clarification issued from time to time and hence illegal and perverse and liable to be set aside. It is further argued that petitioners have acted as per the rules and scheme of the central government and, these rules are binding on them. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Govt. of India Vs. Krishanji Parvetesh Kulkarni 2006 (4) SCC 275 and Arulmighu Dhandayudhapani Swami Thirukoil, Palani Vs. The Director General of Post Offices passed in Civil Appeal No.4995 of 2006.
8. Counsel for the respondents have argued that petitioners had accepted their subscription and they were allowed to deposit the subscription and if there was any subsequent change in the rules, it was the duty of the petitioners to inform them so that they could have an option either to discontinue the account or opt for any other account which would have earned more return. It is submitted that after so many years, the petitioners cannot deny the lawful right of the respondents and this clearly amounts to deficiency in service and, therefore, the Fora below have rightly held so. It is submitted that there is no ground to interfere in the findings of the Fora below. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269, wherein Apex Court has observed as under:
"13. Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two fora."
9. I have heard the arguments of counsel for the parties and perused the record. There is no dispute to the fact that jurisdiction of National Commission in the revision is very limited. The Commission has to see whether there is jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice happened to the petitioners due to the impugned order. The Commission cannot re-assess and re-evaluate the evidence and reach to a different conclusion.
10. On the basis of evidence the facts which stands proved on record are that petitioners opened both the accounts, one of Sunita J Bhatia and another in the name of her minor daughter Riddhi J Bhatia ( who has now attained the maturity) and continued receiving subscription without demur and it was only when audit objection was raised that the petitioners woke up and became aware of the fact that their act was allegedly in violation of certain provisions of rules. It is also admitted fact that at no stage, the complainants / respondents were informed of the change in the policy of deposit in the PPF account. Based on these admitted facts, following findings are given by the District Forum:
7. In this case, in complaint no.807 of 2014, page no. 18 to 24 of PPF Account no. 2499's passbook has been produced. When this passbook has been taken into reading, it seems that complainant Sunita J Bhatiya has opened an account no. 2499 from 08.04.1996 in opponent's post office and every year the amount deposited is less than the limit of Rs.60,000/- or 70,000/-. Also, the opponent has given interest every year on 31st March of every financial year and also given entry for that. Now, the period of 15 years has been over on 31.03.2012 and the amount along with interest is totally in PPF account no. 2499 is Rs.15,34,123/-.
8. Samely, in the complaint no. 808 of 2014, the page no.19 to 25 of PPF account no. 2500 has been produced. When this passbook has been taken into reading, it can be seen that the complainant Sunita J Bhatia has opened the PPF account in the name of her minor daughter Riddhi (birth date 18.08.1988) and as a mother and guarding as on 08.04.1996 in opponent's post office. Every year, the amount deposited in this account was less than the maximum limit of Rs.60,000/- or Rs.70,000/-. The opponent had accepted the amount and also given interest every year on 31st March of financial year and also credited this interest in passbook. Moreover, it can be seen that the period got over on 31.03.2012 and the total amount with interest comes to Rs.23,61,041/-. It also seen that the complainant has not hide any fact and act as per pure intention.
9. The documents and evidences of both the sides has been taken into consideration and the fact can be seen that on 01.04.2012, on completion of the period of 15 years, both Sunita and her daughter Riddhi was eligible to get the amount. Therefore, they contacted the post office to get the amount back. But the complainant Sunita Bhatiya's complaint no. 807/14 on page no. 25, one letter has been produced and according to this letter, the opponent has written this letter to complainant that in both the account no. 2499 and 2500, the total amount in the year 1996-97, 1997-98, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06 the total amount deposited is more than the limit of Rs.60,000/- and Rs.70,000/-. Therefore, the interest amount of Rs.4,76,135/- is comes under audit objection. And therefore, the passbook of both the accounts has been asked to deposit in the post office. Then after, it can be seen that the complainant has given enough clarification. Even after cutting down the interest amount of Rs.4,76,135/- the opponent has not shown any readiness to pay out the big amount of Rs.15,34,123/- and Rs.23,61,041/- to the complainant. The audit objection is for Rs.4,76,135/- but still the big amount of Rs.15,34,123/- and Rs.23,61,041/- has been detained. This is such an unfit and illegal act and service deficiency by the opponent.
15. The complainant's lawyer has produced AIR 2001 Gujarat 58, Prashant K Patel Vs. Union of India Spe.C.A. No.3422/2000 judgment dated 03.05.2000 of Gujarat High court. In this case, the Gujarat High Court has observed following. 'The respondent accepted the opening of the Account and it is very clear that the petitioner or his father never made any misrepresentation or concealed any fact nor suppressed any fact from the respondent. In such a situation, the functionaries of the Government who have to deal with such National Schemes which are public oriented schemes to give an incentive to the members of the public at large for depositing the amounts to make the saving for a rainy day and earn interest on the said money as per the Scheme cannot be allowed to act and take such an arbitrary and incomprehensible stand after they themselves have accepted the opening of such account and the same has been operated with addition of interest from time to time. As a matter of fact, if at all the Account was not treated to be regular on the basis of the General Power of Attorney; they should have taken the objection immediately. Instead of taking such opinion, they have acted upon this scheme in favour of the petitioner and the Account has remained operative for a period of more than ten years and the amount of interest has also been credited as per the entries made in the Passbook up to the year 1998-99. It is a clear case in which the petitioner has thus been made to act to his own prejudice by parting with his amounts by making deposits on the positive acts and representation of the respondent express and implied. The respondent is, therefore, stopped by the principle of promissory and equitable estoppels under the Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act from now denying the fruits of the earned interest in Account of the petitioner as to close the amount without interest. Such an approach on the part of the Government functionaries under the state cannot be encouraged and in such cases, no authority is supposed to take such a hyper-technical view of the matter.
16. The complainant's lawyer has produced AIR 2002 Gujarat 21, Patel Harishbhai Bhanubhai Vs. Chief Postmaster, Ahmedabad GPO Spe.C.A. no.12508/2000 judgment dated 27.07.2001 of Gujarat High Court. In this case, the Gujarat High Court has observed following "What the provision of Sec.4 of thePPF Act 1968 envisage is that the account can be opened in the name of an individual and not in the name of any other legal entity such as firm or a company. It does not envisage that a joint account cannot be opened in the name of two individuals. It may be practice of the Department generally to accept applications of only single individuals. However that long standing practice cannot take away the legal rights of the individuals who have inherited the properties of the deceased. It is not possible to uphold the content in used on behalf of the respondent that Section 4 prohibits the opening of PPF account in the names of two individuals. Moreover, it was with open eyes that the PPF account was opened by the Postal Department in the joint names of the parents of the petitioners. There is no allegation of misrepresentation or concealment of facts by the account holders. As observed by this Court in the judgment dated 03.05.2000 in Special Civil Application no. 3422 of 2000 ( reported in AIR 2001 Gujarat 58), when the department had accepted the opening of the account and the petitioners or their parents never made any misrepresentation or concealed any fact nor suppressed any fact from the Department. In such a situation, the functionaries of the Government ( who have to deal with Saving scheme which are public oriented schemes to give an incentive to the members of the public at large for depositing the amounts to make the savings for a rainy day and earn interest on the said money as per the scheme) cannot be allowed to act and take such an arbitrary and incomprehensible stand after they themselves have accepted the opening of such account and the same has been operated with addition of interest from time to time."
17. 3 (2014) CPJ 412 ( NC) Postmaster SB /Rd.General Post Office Vs. Amitray Sharma, Revision Petition No.360/09, Judgment Dated 29.08.2013 by National Commission Para No.9, following observation done "From the above, it is clear that at the time opening the PPF account that it had been correctly opened as per Rules of the PPF schemes. In the instant case, the Post Master has not only allowed the respondents to open the joint account but also retained the money for 15 years. It never came to the notice of the Postmaster or any senior officials or during any internal and external audit that the said joint PPF account could not have been opened as per the rules." In this judgment, the 9% interest has been accepted."
11. The above said order of the District Forum was challenged in the appeals and same contentions which have been raised before this Commission were raised in the appeals before the State Commission. In appeals, the State Commission has given its findings on these contentions as under:
8. "Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court of India referred to above, in our opinion, the opponent post office should have informed the complainants about the irregularity in opening of the PPF Account within reasonable time of opening of the accounts. Here, in the present case, the complainants were informed about the irregularity way back in 2012 after maturity of the account. Had the complainants been informed earlier, they would have made a decision either to discontinue the account of opt for any other type of account which would have earned them equal or more return on their investment. The complainants had lost such an opportunity. Though there is error apparent on the part of the post office, the complainants, we must say, are equally responsible for the state of affairs. Considering the volume of amount of interest deducted from the payable amount, it would be appropriate and in the interest of justice to direct the opponents to return to the complainants the maturity amount with interest @ 6%.
ORDER
Appeals no. 637 of 2016 and 638 of 2016 are partly allowed. Order dated 28.09.2015 rendered in Complaint No.807 of 2014 and 808 of 2014 is modified as under:
The opponent Postal Office is directed to pay to Sunita J Bhatia ( complaint No.807 of 2014) the maturity amount in her PPF Account No.2499 with interest @ 6% from 01.04.2012 within six weeks from today.
The opponent Postal Office is directed to pay to Riddhi J Bhatia (complaint No.808 of 2014) the maturity amount in her PPF Account No.2500 with interest @ 6% from 1.4.2012 within 6 weeks from today.
The amount of compensation awarded in the sum of Rs.15,000/- in each of the complaints is reduced to Rs.5000/-.Rest of the order of the City Forum is maintained.
Office is directed to verify the amount deposited by the appellant in each of the appeals and if found deposited, refund the same with interest, if any accrued on the deposit, by issuing A/c.Payee cheque in the name of the appellant.The cheque may be handed over to the attending advocate after following due procedure."
12 Undisputed facts are that petitioners had neither alleged nor there is any evidence to even suggest that complainants had played any fraud upon the petitioners while opening the accounts and while continuing depositing the amount in the PPF accounts or that they had ever concealed or misrepresented any fact. The petitioners opened the accounts with open eyes and continued receiving the subscriptions. Petitioners have all along been enjoying the money deposited by the respondents and must have been investing it to earn profits or using it for fulfilling the State's obligation of a welfare State. It is a case where by supressing the rules and regulations and by not apprising the same to the complainants / respondents, and thus keeping them in the dark, the petitioners continued to receive their hard earned money in PPF accounts and thereafter utilized their money for their own purpose. Now, when the petitioners take the plea that they had done a wrong act by receiving the money from the respondents, they are admitting that they have failed in discharge of their services and thus, there is deficiency in service on their part. When there is deficiency in service, they are liable under Consumer Protection Act to compensate properly. Even otherwise, the interpretation which has been suggested to the relevant rules by the petitioners is contrary to the rules of interpretation. The rules of interpretation requires the harmonious construction of the rules and its explanation or clarification which requires that explanation or clarification of a rule has to be in consonance with the body of the Act / Rule and cannot run contrary to it. If it is so, the main rule and the Act shall prevail. The District Forum has duly interpreted the PPF Act and rules and has held as under:
"10. The opponent has shown PPF scheme ruling in which on page no. 45, paragraph III the minimum and maximum limit of deposit is shown as under:
"Any individual can subscribe to the Public Provident Fund on his own behalf or on behalf of a minor of whom he is guardian any amount in multiple of Rs.50/- not less than Rs.500/- and not more than Rs.70,000/- in a year. A year for the purpose of the scheme means a financial year (1st April to 31st March)".
11. When this provision taken into reading, it can be seen that any individual person on his own name or in the name of minor's guardian can open a PPF account. And the maximum of limit of Rs.60,000/- and Rs.70,000/- can deposited in individual account as well as in minor account separately. It is not written in the provision that the maximum limit is for both the account jointly, in provision, the word used is 'on his own behalf or on behalf of a minor of whom he is a guardian'. The word used is 'OR' and it is not 'AND'. Therefore, the amount cannot be calculated as jointly. But the limit to be calculated in both the accounts separately.
12. As per above, as per PPF scheme provision, as an individual person, Sunita has invested in PPF account no. 2499/- into the maximum limit of Rs.60,000/- or Rs.70,000/- as well as a guardian of Riddhi (Minor), she has invested in the maximum limit of Rs.60,000/- or Rs.70,000/-. The opponent has accepted the amount every year and also given interest on that. Now at the time of withdraw, the amount by the opponent side has been detained wrongly by arising an audit objection. This is illegal and service deficiency.
13. The opponent's lawyer has drawn the attention on page no. 47 and produced that on 06.12.2000, there is a clarification given that the maximum limit of Rs.70,000/- can be calculated as an individual and for minor's guardian as 'combined'. But it can be see that this clarification is in opposite of PPF Scheme's provision. In clarification the word 'OR' is changed by 'AND' and the word 'combined' is added. Now in this clarification, the word used as 'and' instead of 'or' which is not possible. There should be amendment in the PPF Scheme. This provision has read wrongly. The clarification on 06.12.2000 cannot give benefit to the opponent.
14. In this case it can be seen that both the complainant's account no: 2499 and 2500 opened on 08.04.1996. At that time, whatever provision written in PPF scheme that should be taken into consideration. As per discussed above, the limit in above case for individual and as minor's guardian can be taken separately and not jointly. The opponent has given clarification through notification of 06.12.2000 but this was never informed to the complainant. So this clarification cannot be acted on this case."
13. The interpretation given is as per the settled principles of harmonious construction. No other interpretation is feasible and possible. Thus, there is no merit in the revision petitions. Both the revision petitions are hereby dismissed. This Bench has been informed that the petitioners have not till date released to the respondents even the amount which according to them is payable to the respondents. This sort of conduct is unpardonable.
14. Both the revisions petitions are, hereby, dismissed.
......................J DEEPA SHARMA PRESIDING MEMBER