State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Union Of India, Department Of Post And ... vs Shri N.D. Sharma on 20 July, 2012
BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SOLAN, H
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA.
First Appeal No.259/2011
Date of Decision: 20.07.2012
1. Union
of India,
Department of Post & Telegraph,
New
Delhi,
Through its Secretary.
2. Head Postmaster, Head Post Office,
Mandi, District Mandi, H.P.
.. Appellants
Versus
Shri N.D. Sharma son of Shri Dev Dutt
Sharma,
R/o House No.214/13, Near ITI Hospital,
Mandi,
District Mandi, H.P.
Respondent
.
Coram
Honble Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Presiding Member
Honble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member
Whether approved for
reporting?[1]
Yes
For the Appellants: Mr. Vijay Arora, Advocate
For the Respondent: In
person
O R D E R:
Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Presiding Member.
This appeal is directed against the order dated 18.08.2011 passed in Consumer Complaint No.290/2010 by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi, whereby the complaint was allowed and the opposite parties were directed to pay to the complainant `1,04,250/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of maturity complaint till realization. Compensation had been awarded to the tune of `1000/- and litigation cost was quantified at `1000/-. Parties hereinafter are to be referred as per their status in the complaint.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that complainant N.D. Sharma had deposited `6,00,000/- on 11.09.2004 in the joint account No.2704 under the monthly income scheme. The joint account holder was his wife Narindera Sharma. Monthly income scheme was floated by the opposite party No.2.
As per this scheme, opposite party No.2 was to pay `4,000/- per month as interest for the period of 4 years and `6,60,000/- was to be paid on the date of maturity on 11.09.2010. In addition to this, 10% bonus on the original account of both the account holders is to be paid. Further averments in the complaint are that Smt. Narendra Sharma, one of the joint account holders had died on 11.03.2010 and thereafter this fact was brought to the notice of agent through whom the account has been opened in the presence of Shri Deepak Sharma, Advocate. Upon this, the complainant was advised to disclose the matter to the opposite party No.2. Therefore, the complainant alongwith Shri Deepak Sharma went to the Postmaster, who told that survivor can operate the joint account in case of death of one of the joint holders. As a result of this, he received monthly interest. When the account matured on 11.09.2010 the passbook was presented to the opposite party No.2 on 13.09.2010. However, he was paid `5,55,750/- instead of maturity amount of `6,60,000/-. When enquiry was made, he was told that in case of death of one of the joint holders, account will be treated as a single account in the name of the surviving depositor and excess payment and interest etc. were to be deducted from the total amount payable to the complainant. It is claimed that when account was opened, no such rule was brought to the notice of the complainant or his wife (deceased).
3. Further case of the complainant is that deduction of `1,04,250/- on the part of opposite party No.2 is illegal and this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. In this background, a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 had been filed for deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.
4. The complaint was contested and resisted by the opposite parties, wherein they have admitted that joint monthly income account No.2704 was opened at Mandi Post Office on 11.09.2004 and `6,00,000/- was invested in the name of the complainant and Smt. Narendra Sharma, his wife. However, it was denied that death of Smt. Narendra Sharma was disclosed to opposite party No.2 by the complainant. However, on the other hand, death of Smt. Narendra Sharma was brought to the notice of the opposite parties by the complainant on 13.09.2010.
Therefore, the complainant has wrongly received the interest on full amount of `6,00,000/- upto maturity against the instructions contained in the letter No.110-23/2001-SAB, dated 07.01.2003. As per the rules, if the depositor of MIS account dies, the account will be treated as a single account in the name of the surviving depositor from the date when the death is brought to the notice. Hence, the complainant was given a cheque of `5,55,750/- rightly after making necessary deduction. Therefore, it was pleaded that there was no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.
5. Rejoinder to the complaint was also filed, wherein the complainant had reiterated the stand taken in the complaint.
6. Brief resume of evidence led by the parties in nutshell is that the complainant in support of its case has filed his own affidavit and affidavit of Shri Deepak Sharma and also placed reliance upon a number of documents Annexure C-1 to C-4, viz., copy of passbook, copy of cheque, photostat copy of representation dated 15.09.2010 addressed to the Head Postmaster, Mandi, reply of said letter given to the complainant by Sub Postmaster, Mandi.
The opposite parties in support of their case have filed affidavit of Shri M.R. Chaudhary, Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Mandi and had placed reliance upon notification DG No.110-23/ 2001-SAB, dated 07.01.2003, which provides that in the eventuality of death of one of the depositors of joint account holders, account will be treated as single deposit account and the surviving depositor will not be entitled for any further interest immediately after the death of one of the joint account holders. The single account will stand closed and no interest will be levied on this account.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants as also the respondent in person and gone through the record of the case minutely.
8. Mr. Vijay Arora, counsel for the appellants argued that order of the Forum below is not legally sustainable and it deserves to be set aside and he has based arguments upon order-15, abstract thereof is at page-35 of the complaint file, which deals with the point relating to the status of joint MIS account on the death of one of the depositors, which provides that in case of death of one of the depositors of MIS account, then the account will be treated as a single account in the name of the surviving depositor from the date of death of such depositor and when the report relating to the death is received by the post office and thereafter Postmaster/Sub Postmaster will ask the surviving depositor to withdraw the extra amount in excess of the limit prescribed in the single account depositor and this amount will not carry interest from the date of death of the joint depositor. He had also laid emphasis upon Rule 9 (2), wherein it is provided that in case of death of one of the joint account holders before it maturity, then the account is to be closed and the account holder will be entitled to interest only uptill the month on which the account holder had died. He also placed reliance upon the judgment of Honble Supreme Court titled Postmaster, Dargamitta H.P.O. Nellore versus Raja Prameeelamma 1995 STPL (LE) 20881 SC and of Honble National Commission in Revision Petition No.1020 of 2002 titled K.M. Singh versus Senior Postmaster, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi, wherein it was held that National Saving Certificate interest which is notified by the Govt. at the rate of 11% with effect from 01.04.1987 and the rate of interest is printed on the certificates not corrected due to inadvertence that does not amount to deficiency in service, either in terms of law or contract. In another judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellants, it was held that rules framed under Post Office Monthly Income Account Rules, 1987 framed under Govt. Saving Banks Act, 1873 are having statutory force which prohibits opening of more than one account under Rule-4 of the Post Office (Monthly Income Account) Rules, 1987.
9. Mr. Arora was also directed to produce the book from which abstract of Clause-15 of ibid instructions, which have been relied upon by him which are at page-35 of the complaint file and relevant postal manual containing such instructions/order for perusal of this Commission.
10. Mr. Arora in view of the aforesaid directions had drawn our attention to the compilation or book of A.N. Dureja Assistant Director General (Retd.) P & T Accounts & Finance Service on the Post Office Small Savings Schemes page-159 Edition-2008, which contain important orders, viz., order-15 in Chapter-13 under heading Post Office (Monthly Income Account) Rules, 1987, which relates to the status of joint MIS account on the death of one of the depositors which had been dealt herein above and he had also drawn our attention to the Post Office Savings Bank Manual, Volume-1, issued under the Authority of Director General of Posts, India and Secretary to Government of India, Department of Posts.
Para-168 (8) of said manual contained in Chapter-5 under the heading Monthly Income Account Scheme, 1987, salient features thereof is at page-214 of the said manual, which may kindly be perused from pages-18 to 28 of the appeal file. They are on the point that in case of death of one of he joint account holders, MIS account is to be treated as single account and no interest is to be paid on the said amount after the death of joint account holder.
11. Mr. N.D. Sharma, respondent, who appeared in person and is a practicing Advocate had argued his case himself. He had supported the order of the Fora below and had placed reliance upon the judgment of National Consumer Commission given in case Ratan Chand Sondhiya versus Sub-Post Master, Garhakota, reported in 2008 NCJ 86 (NC), wherein it was held that non-explaining of postal monthly scheme amounts to deficiency in service.
12. There is no dispute about the legal proposition laid down in the cases of said precedents.
13. After hearing the parties and minutely scanning the record of the case, we are of the considered view that order of the Fora below is not legally sustainable and deserves to be set aside.
Reason being that order/ clause-15, upon which reliance had been placed by the counsel for the appellants which is contained in book titled Post Office Small Savings Schemes, 2008 written by A.N. Dureja Assistant Director General (Retd.) P & T Accounts & Finance Service, which is an authentic publication, since this order-15 which is contained in this book which is at page-35 of the complaint file is the same as contained in Post Office Saving Manual Volume-1, which is issued under the Authority of Director General of Posts, India and Secretary to Government of India, Department of Posts at page-214.
14. Rule 168(8) contained in Chapter-5 under the heading Monthly Income Account Scheme, 1987, salient features which clearly deals with the status of joint MIS account on the death of one of the depositors. This manual has been published under the Authority of Director General of Posts, India and Secretary to Government of India, Department of Posts and this para 168(8) cannot be escaped attention which is clearly applicable in the present case. The relevant abstract of this para as contained in ibid manual at pages 213-214 which is similar to order-15 contained in the book of A.N. Dureja Assistant Director General (Retd.) P & T Accounts & Finance Service, as referred above, is abstracted herein below for ready reference:-
168.
(1) .(8)
Status of joint MIS Account on the death of one of the depositors:- If one of he depositors of a MIS Account dies, the account will be treated as a single account in the name of the surviving depositor from the date of death of the said depositor when a report to this effect is received in the post office. The PM/SPM will ask the surviving depositor to withdraw the excess amount in excess of the limit prescribed for single depositor as this amount will not carry interest from the date of death of the joint depositor.
The interest already paid on this excess amount will be recovered or adjusted. The account will be converted into a single account.
15. Hence, in view of the aforesaid provisions contained in the postal manual referred to above, which is having statutory force in view of the precedent laid down by the Honble National Consumer Commission in case Ratan Chand Sondhiya versus Sub-Post Master, Garhakota, reported in 2008 NCJ 86 (NC), supra. Complainants account will be treated as single account in the name of the surviving depositor, viz., Shri N.D. Sharma and it will not carry interest from the date of death of joint depositor Smt. Narendra Sharma, who died on 11.03.2010.
16. Hence, there is no illegality on the part of opposite parties in not paying the full payment of `6,60,000/- and an amount of `1,04,250/- had been rightly deducted, since the complainant was not entitled to the interest on the said deposit after the death of his wife which is admittedly possessed in the matter and complainant had been paid `5,55,750/-.
17. In the present case, complainant should have immediately given written intimation to the postal authorities about the death of his wife being joint account holder which is a Govt. Department and the version of the complainant that after the death of his wife, the agent of the post office through whom the account was opened was informed does not appeal to reason.
18. Moreover, no affidavit of the concerned agent had been filed by the complainant on this score, hence this version cannot be believed. However, the passbook was presented to the opposite party No.2 on 13.09.2010 after maturity of the account which had matured on 11.09.2010.
19. This fact is also evident from the letter Annexure C-4 addressed to the complainant by Postmaster, Mandi that interest @ 3.5 % had been added against the excess payment and as such in view of the aforesaid detailed discussion, there is no deficiency of service/unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and conclusion drawn by the lower Fora in this regard is not legally sustainable.
20. Hence, in view of the aforesaid discussion and facts and circumstances of the case and legal position explained above, the present appeal is accepted and the order of learned District Forum below dated 18.08.2011 passed in Consumer Complaint No.290/2010 is set aside and as a sequel thereof, complaint also stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
21. One copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Chander Shekhar Sharma) Presiding Member (Prem Chauhan) Member July 20, 2012 *dinesh* [1] Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? Yes