State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Postmaster, Head Post Office, Civil ... vs Sh. Ram Avtar Sharma on 19 January, 2007
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND - 5 - STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND DEHRA DUN FIRST APPEAL NO. 131 / 2006 Postmaster, Head Post Office, Civil Lines, Roorkee and another ......Appellants Versus Sh. Ram Avtar Sharma .....Respondent Sh. A.K. Dimri, Learned Counsel for the Appellants Sh. Rahul Sharma and Sh. D.P.S. Verma, Learned Counsels for the Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Justice Irshad Hussain, President Surendra Kumar, Member Dated: 19.01.2007 ORDER
(Per:
Justice Irshad Hussain, President):
This is postal department's appeal against the order dated 29.05.2006 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 265 / 2003. By the order impugned in appeal, the complaint was allowed with cost assessed at Rs. 1,000/- and the concerned postal authority was directed to close the PPF account in question at the convenience of the complainant after crediting the entire amount of interest due at the rate prescribed within a period of one month from the date of the order. Complainant was given an option to open a fresh PPF account according to the rule and procedure prescribed.
2. Public Provident Fund account No. 131 was initially opened in the joint names of the complainant Sh. Ram Avtar Sharma and his wife Smt. Mamta Sharma at Head Post Office, Mathura on 16.03.1992 and continued to be in operation as such. According to Rule 3 of the Public Provident Fund Scheme, 1968, the PPF account can be opened by an individual in his own name or on behalf of a minor of whom he is the guardian. It has been clarified by the Ministry of Finance that the PPF account cannot be opened in the joint names as has been the case with the PPF account in question. When this irregularity came to the notice of the postal authorities, they sent a letter dated 29.08.2001 (Paper No. 33) to the complainant informing him of the said irregularity and calling upon him to close the joint PPF account. This letter as is evident from the endorsement overleaf (Paper No. 34) could not be served on the complainant as he had left the place of the address on which this letter was sent. The complainant had meanwhile shifted to Roorkee and the PPF account was transferred to Head Post Office, Roorkee where the present number 131 was allotted to the account. On 14.01.2002, complainant wanted to make a deposit of Rs. 100/- in the PPF account which was, however, not ultimately permitted by the postal department and complainant was informed that he cannot deposit any amount in this account and that no interest shall also be payable on the amount deposited in the account. It is evident that the refusal to permit deposit was on account of the fact that there was an irregularity in the opening of the PPF account in the joint names of the complainant and his wife.
3. The complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum by filing the consumer complaint after postal department's refusal to permit deposit of money in the PPF account in question. Complainant alleged that the postal department made deficiency in service by not permitting deposit of Rs. 100/- on 14.01.2002 and that he is entitled to have his PPF account continued as such. He wanted to have recovery of Rs. 90,000/- towards interest and Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and further claimed Rs. 2,500/- as litigation expenses from the postal department.
4. The consumer complaint was contested on the aforesaid ground of irregularity in the opening of the PPF account in the joint names of the complainant and his wife and as such the complainant was informed to close the PPF account in the joint names and to open a fresh account in the name of an individual. The letter referred above was, thus, sent which was not served on the complainant and when the complainant came to deposit the money on 14.01.2002, he was told about the irregularity and to do the needful. They pleaded that no deficiency was made in refusing the deposit of sum of Rs. 100/- on 14.01.2002 and that the complainant was not entitled to the relief claimed in the complaint.
5. The District Forum made an appreciation of the material on record and also Rule 3 of the Public Provident Fund Scheme, 1968 and came to the conclusion that the irregularity in the opening of the PPF account in the joint names was due to the mistake on the part of the postal department for which the complainant cannot at all be faulted and as such the postal department made deficiency in service and is liable to pay due interest on the amount credited in the PPF account in question till the date of its closer according to the procedure prescribed and at the convenience of the complainant. The relief was accordingly granted to the complainant.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully considered their submission in the light of the facts of the case and legal aspects of the matter in issue. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the error in the order impugned of the District Forum is writ large in view of the fact that factually as well as legally the complainant could not have been extended benefit of accrual of the interest on the amount deposited in the PPF account in question till the date of closer at the convenience of the complainant even though the irregularity as mentioned above came to be known to the postal department in the month of August 2001 when the letter (Paper No. 33) referred above was sent to the complainant and particularly when the complainant was informed about the irregularity in the opening of PPF account in the joint names on 14.01.2002 when he went to deposit Rs. 100/- in the PPF account in question. Considering the broad aspects of the case as referred above, the submission of the learned counsel cannot be said to be without force. The reason being that no illegality or irregularity in any transaction either official or contractual cannot be permitted to be perpetuated even after the fact as to the illegality or irregularity is made known to the parties concerned and, therefore, any illegality or irregularity has to be rectified or removed without putting the parties concerned to further loss or detriment. The complainant in this case has nowhere disputed the fact that the rule did not permit opening of PPF account in the joint names and, therefore, the postal department was within its right to call upon the complainant by sending letter dated 29.08.2001 to close the PPF account in question and finally on 14.01.2002 when the complainant came to the post office at Roorkee to make further deposit in the said account. In the face of the facts of the case, the complainant was obliged to act upon accordingly immediately instead of insisting upon continuance of the PPF account in question as such in the joint names by taking a plea that the postal department has had no right to refuse further deposit, which tantamount to deficiency in service. The complainant was, thus, also not legally obliged to claim interest on the deposits till the date of the closer of the PPF account at his convenience and the District Forum clearly lost sight of this legal aspect of the matter while coming to the conclusion that the complainant is entitled to interest due on the deposits till the date of the closer of the account at the convenience of the complainant and within a period of one month of the impugned order.
7. The letter dated 29.08.2001 had not been served on the complainant and he was for the first time made aware of the irregularity on 14.01.2002 and as such he was under an obligation to close the PPF account in question instead of claiming that the postal department made deficiency in service in refusing to permit deposit of Rs. 100/- in the account in question on 14.01.2002. In view of it, the letter dated 29.08.2001 having not been served on the complainant and the complainant having been made aware of the irregularity for the first time on 14.01.2002 and then not closing the PPF account in question to rectify the irregularity / mistake, he could not have been held entitled to the interest accruing after the said date of knowledge of the irregularity. In fact, there being no deficiency in service on the part of the postal department, the complainant has had no locus standi to file the consumer complaint and claim the relief as stated above. Therefore, the District Forum made an error in allowing the complaint with cost and making a direction that the PPF account in question shall be closed within one month at the convenience of the complainant by crediting the entire interest accruing on the deposits till the date of the closer of the account. The view taken by the District Forum being erroneous cannot legally be maintained as such and an appropriate direction need to be given to the postal department in the matter in issue.
8. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is disposed of with the direction that on the deposits of the complainant in the PPF account in question, the postal department shall pay interest at the prescribed rate till 14.01.2002 and the complainant shall have the PPF account in question closed within a period of 10 days from the date of this order. Costs are made easy.
(SURENDRA KUMAR) (JUSTICE IRSHAD HUSSAIN)