State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mangat Rai vs Post Master, Post Office on 19 November, 2015
2nd Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 703 of 2015
Date of institution: 29.06.2015
Date of Decision: 19.11.2015
Mangat Rai S/o Sh. Ram Chand R/o M/s Ram Chand Chajju Ram,
Commissions Agent, Dirba, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur.
Appellants/complainant
Versus
1. Post Master, Post Office (Main), Near Old Grain Market, Sunam,
Distt. Sangrur.
2. Department of posts through Superintendent Post Office, Sangrur
Division, Main Post Office, Sangrur.
Respondents/Opposite Parties
First Appeal against the order dated
08.05.2015 passed by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur
Quorum:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
Shri. Jasbir Singh Gill, Member
Shri. Harcharan Singh Guram, Member
Present:-
For the appellants : Sh. Harish Goyal, Advocate
For the respondent : None
Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
ORDER
The appellants/complainant (hereinafter referred as "complainant") has filed the present appeal against the order dated First Appeal No. 703 of 2015 2 08.05.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur (hereinafter referred as the District Forum) in consumer complaint No.51 dated 02.02.2015 vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed.
2. The complainant has filed the complaint against the respondents/opposite parties (hereinafter referred as "OPs") under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short 'the Act') against OPs on the averments that he had one HUF PPF account baring No. 4089 from OP No. 1 at Sunam, opened on 22.03.1997. It was for a period of 15 years and it was further extended for a period of 5 years. The complainant had been depositing the amounts in the above said account regularly and was to be matured on 31.03.2012. But he got it extended for another period of 5 years and deposited Rs. 500/- on 30.03.2013 and Rs. 500/- on 27.03.2014. When he asked the officials of OP No. 1 to make an entry in the passbook by adding interest for the previous years, he let off the matter on the pretext that he was busy. The complainant again visited OP No. 1 on 06.01.2015 and OP No. 1 calculated the interest and added 4,01,901/- upto the year 2011-12. They refused to calculate the interest from 01.04.2012 onwards without assigning any reason. The complainant visited OP No. 1 to add interest for the subsequent years but OP No. 1 refused to listen the request of the complainant, which makes it clear that there was unfair trade practice on the part of OPs and that they were deficient in service. Hence the complaint with directions to OPs to add interest on the balance amount for the years 2012-13, 2013-14, First Appeal No. 703 of 2015 3 2014-15 and also to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs. 5500/-.
3. The complaint was contested by OPs, who in their written version admitted that the complainant had opened HUF PPF account NO. 4089 on 22.03.1997 at Sunam Sub Office for the period of 15 years which had matured on 31.03.2012. However, the complainant deposited Rs. 500/- on 30.03.2013 and Rs. 500/- on 27.03.2014. The interest upto 31.03.2012 has already been paid in the account of the complainant, however interest was not payable on the PPF account opened under category of HUF before 13.05.2005 beyond 31.03.2012 as per SB order No. 23/2010 issued vide letter No. 32- 01/2010-SB dated 13.12.2010. Since the interest was not payable after 31.03.2012, therefore, it was not added in the account of the complainant. Therefore, there was no unfair trade practice on the part of OPs and no deficiency in their service, therefore, the complaint was without merit. It be dismissed.
4. The parties were allowed by the learned District Forum to lead their evidence.
5. In support of his allegations, complainant had tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1, copy of passbook Ex. C-2 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, OPs tendered into evidence copy of SB order dated 13.12.2010 Ex. OP-1, copy of SB order dated 12.03.2013 Ex. OP-2, copy of ledger Ex. OP-3, affidavit of D.S. Suri, Superintendent, Post Offices Ex. OP-4 and closed the evidence.
6. After going through the averments as referred in the complaint, written version filed by OPs, evidence and documents First Appeal No. 703 of 2015 4 brought on the record, the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed on the grounds that interest was not paid according to the instructions issued by the Department.
7. Aggrieved with the order passed by the learned District Forum, the appellant/complainant has filed the present appeal.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant as none was present on behalf of the OPs and have perused the record.
9. It has been argued by the counsel for the complainant that interest has been declined to the appellant/complainant after 31.03.2012 on the plea that it was an HUF account opened before 13.05.2005 and according to SB Order No. 23/2010 vide letter No. 32-01/2010-SBdated 13.12.2010 issued by OPs. However, OPs never followed these instructions in its true spirit. In case, there were instructions, then the amount so deposited by the complainant after 31.03.2012 should not have been accepted or intimation should have been given to the complainant to close the account so that he could close his account as on 31.03.2012. In support of his contention he has relied upon the judgment passed by the State Commission, Tamil Nadu in IV (2010) CPJ 201 "Senior Postmaster, Head Post Office, Thanjavur Versus G. Nalini & Anr." wherein it was observed that having enjoyed benefits of amount deposited by the complainant, OP is bound to pay the interest as per the agreed rate. However the Hon'ble National Commission in judgment titled "Sr. Supdt. Of Post Office, Amritsar & Anr. Vs. Ashok Kumar (HUF)" I (2011) CPJ 41, in that case, the complaint was allowed by the District Forum, First Appeal No. 703 of 2015 5 however the State Commission had held that the complainant was entitled to interest @ 6%. It was observed that balance has to be stuck between the parties. Accordingly, award of the interest @ 6 % per annum on the deposit made thereafter was allowed. In another judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court 1998(9) SCC 706 "Postmaster, Dargamitta H.P.O., Nellore versus Raja Prameeelamma (Ms.)", in that case, rate of interest payable on NSC was reduced from a particular date, which was notified by the Govt. of India. However, subsequent to the notification clerical staff of the Post Office did not correct the old rate of interest. It was held that such inadvertent act on the part of the staff of the Post Office does not amount to deficiency in service. Similarly, the staff of the Post Office continued to receive payment on discontinued PPF Account beyond 31.3.2012, therefore, an inadvertent act on the part of the OPs does not amount to deficiency in services.
10. In the present case, the PPF account (HUF) was to be discontinued after 31.03.2012 and the interest has been paid up to that date but the staff of Ops received a subscription of that account in the year 2013-14 and 2014-2015 but failed to give any interest on the deposited amount. No doubt that inadvertent act on the part of staff of Ops may not amounted to deficiency in services but they have utilised the amount of the complainant, therefore, to strike the balance, it is appropriate to allow Interest @ 6% beyond 31.03.2012 till the date of actual payment. The District Forum had dismissed the complaint merely because of the fact that as per notification, the account was to be closed, therefore, the complainant was not entitled First Appeal No. 703 of 2015 6 to any interest without appreciating the fact that the amount was utilized by Ops during that period. In these circumstances, the impugned order is not legally sustainable.
11. In view of the above discussion, we accept the appeal and impugned order is set-aside. The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed with observations that w.e.f. 01.04.2012, the complainant will be entitled to the interest @ 6% on the deposited amount till the date of actual payment and a sum of Rs. 5,000/- is allowed as cost of litigation.
12. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 13.11.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
13. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Gurcharan Singh Saran) Presiding Judicial Member (Jasbir Singh Gill) Member November 19 , 2015. (Harcharan Singh Guram) RK Member