State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Head Post Master Head Post Office, ... vs Government Senior Secondary School, ... on 30 March, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.2453/2006 & 133/2007 Date of Institution: 24.10.2006/16.01.2007 Date of Decision: 30.03.2012 Appeal No.2453/2006 1. The Head Post Master Head Post Office, Sonepat. 2. The Superintendent of Head Post Office, Sonepat Division, Sonepat. Appellants (OPs) Versus Government Senior Secondary School, Sahazadpur, Sonepat through its Principal. Respondent (Complainant) For the Parties: Shri R.P. Singh, advocate for appellants. None for respondent. Appeal No.133/2007 Government Senior Secondary School, Sahazadpur, Sonepat through its Principal. Appellant (Complainant) Versus 1. The Head Post Master Head Post Office, Sonepat. 2. The Superintendent of Head Post Office, Sonepat Division, Sonepat. Respondents (Ops) For the Parties: None for appellant. Shri R.P. Singh, advocate for respondents. BEFORE: Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Madan, President. Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member. O R D E R
Justice R.S. Madan, President:
These two appeals bearing No.2453/2006 and 133/2007n have arisen out of the order dated 14.09.2006 passed by District Consumer Forum, Sonepat in complaint No.345/2005.
Undisputed facts of the present case as emerged from the record are that the appellant (complainant) had invested rupees one lac in the year 1999 in six years National Saving Certificate VIII issued on 15.7.1999 in the name of Government Senior Secondary School, Shahzadpur, Sonepat and obtained ten NSCs of the value Rs.10,000/- each from the respondents-opposite parties. The above said NSCs were issued by the officials of the Post Office erroneously in contravention of Rule 4 of NSC VIIIth issue Rule 1989 and further amended vide MOF (DEA) notification No.GSR 120(E) dated 8.3.1995 effective from 01.04.1995 and for that reason a letter bearing No.CCPA/99-2000 dated 21.07.1999 was issued by Post Master, Sonepat to the Principal for irregular issue of these NSCs intimating that no interest was admissible on the above said NSCs. The complainant was asked to take payment of Principal amount as no interest is admissible. A departmental action was also taken against the erring officials.
In the complaint filed before the District Consumer Forum, the complainant alleged that on maturity of the NSCs, when the complainant contacted the opposite parties, they did not pay the maturity amount and rather asked the complainant to get the principal amount deposited. Complainant served notice to the opposite parties and thereafter filed complaint.
Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and contested the complaint by filing written statement wherein they denied complainants claim on the grounds stated in the preceding paras of this order.
On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on the record, District Consumer Forum accepted complaint and issued direction to the opposite parties given below:-
In the opinion of this Forum, the complainant is entitled for the interest at the rate of 09% per annum from 15.7.99 to 21.7.1999 on the amount of Rs.one lac and thus, the respondents are directed to make the payment of Rs.one lac alongwith interest at the rate of 09% per annum from 15.7.99 (the date of purchase of NSCs) till 21.7.99 (the date on which letter was issued by the respondents to the complainant that no interest is admissible on these NSCs). The respondents are further directed to compensate the complaint to the tune of Rs.five thousands for rendering deficient services as well as for causing unnecessary mental agony and harassment since the respondents only to receive the huge amount of Rs.one lac from the complainant, immediately issued NSCs of the said amount and at that time, the respondents even did not bother to know whether it can be issued or not to the Govt. Agency and further to pay a sum of Rs.two thousands only under the head of litigation expenses, within a period of 30 days from the date of this order and thus, the present complaint stands accepted partly.
Aggrieved against the order of the District Consumer Forum, the opposite parties have filed appeal No.2453/2006 for setting aside the impugned order whereas the complainant has filed appeal No.133/2007 for granting relief as sought in the complaint.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellants (opposite Parties) and perused the case file. None has appeared on behalf of the complaint despite repeated calls since morning though the case is fixed for arguments.
At the very outset, the question for consideration before us is whether the complainant is entitled for interest on the NSCs amount which were erroneously issued in favour of Government Senior Secondary School, Shahzadpur (Sonepat), in contravention of Rule 4 of NSC VIIIth issue Rule 1989 and further amended vide MOF (DEA) notification No.GSR 120(E) dated 8.3.1995 effective from 01.04.1995? The answering to this question is in negative.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties has argued that as per Rule 4 of NSC VIIIth issue Rule 1989 and further amended vide MOF (DEA) notification No.GSR 120(E) dated 8.3.1995 effective from 01.04.1995, NSCs cannot be issued in the name of Institution. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the opposite parties has referred to the judgment rendered by Honble Supreme Court in case of Arulmighu Dhandayudhapaniswamy Thirukoil, Palani, Tamil Nadu, thr. Its Joint Commissioner versus Director General of Post Offices, Department of Posts and others, 2011(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 776.
We find force in the contention raised on behalf of opposite parties. In Arulmighu Dhandayudhapaniswamy Thirukoil, Palani, Tamil Nadu, thr. Its Joint Commissioner versus Director General of Post Offices, Department of Posts and others case (Supra), the facts were that the complainant-Institution had deposited Rs.1.40 crore with post office from 5.5.1995 to 16.8.1995 under 5 year time Deposit Scheme. Post Office had inadvertently accepted the deposit though the scheme had already been discontinued w.e.f. 01.04.1995. Post Office refunded the amount to the Institution on 03.01.1996 without any interest. Keeping in view Rule 17 of the Rules, the opposite party was held not deficient in service and the deposited amount was ordered to be refunded to the depositor-Institution without any interest.
The instant case is fully covered by Arulmighu Dhandayudhapaniswamy Thirukoil, Palani, Tamil Nadu, thr. Its Joint Commissioner versus Director General of Post Offices, Department of Posts and others case (Supra). Admittedly, the NSCs contained the terms of contract between the Government of India and the holders of the National Savings Certificate and the same are binding upon the parties as per the notifications issued by Government from time to time.
Honble Gujarat High Court in case cited as Tyrreli Leth lodge vs. Union of India, 2005(1) ISJ (Banking) 126 has held that:-
Once the petitioner is not entitled to purchase the aforesaid National Savings Certificate though the same have been issued by the Post Office concerned, as per rule 11 of the Rules, 1981 for such type of irregular holder of the said National Savings Certificate i.e. the petitioner shall not be entitled to the interest on the principal amount of National Savings Certificates.
The facts of the instant case are fully attracted to Tyrreli Leth lodge case (Supra). Since the NSCs were wrongly issued in the name of complainant in contravention of Rule 4 of NSC VIIIth issue Rule 1989 and further amended vide MOF (DEA) notification No.GSR 120(E) dated 8.3.1995 effective from 01.04.1995, therefore, the complainant is not entitled for any interest on the deposited amount. District Consumer Forum has failed to appreciate the above stated facts of the case, hence, the impugned order passed by the District Forum cannot be allowed to sustain.
For the reasons recorded above, appeal No.2453/2006 is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed. consequently, appeal No.133/2007 filed by complainant for enhancement of compensation is dismissed.
The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing appeal No.2453/2006 be refunded to the opposite parties against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal and revision, if any filed in this case.
The original order/judgment be attached with appeal No.2453/2006 and certified copy be attached with appeal No.133/2007.
Announced: Justice R.S. Madan 30.03.2012 President B.M. Bedi Judicial Member