State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sub Post Master, Sub Post Office, ... vs Surinder Pal Singh Grewal on 16 October, 2009
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
S.C.O. NO.3009-10, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.231 of 2004
Date of institution : 27.02.2004
Date of decision : 16.10.2009
1. Sub Post Master, Sub Post Office, Phase-5, Mohali District Ropar.
2. Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Sector 17, Chandigarh.
...Appellants
Versus
Surinder Pal Singh Grewal s/o Sh.Lall Singh, r/o # 111, Phase 3-B-1,
S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, District Ropar.
...Respondent
First Appeal against the order dated 9.1.2004
of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Ropar.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President.
Lt.Col.Darshan Singh (Retd.), Member.
Sh. Piare Lal Garg, Member.
Present:-
For the appellants : Sh.G.C.Babbar, Advocate. For the respondent : Sh.Harish Goel, Advocate for Sh.Naresh Kaushal, Advocate.
JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT Surinder Pal Singh Grewal respondent had purchased 8 Kisan Vikas Patras (in short "K.V.Ps) in the name of Hindu Undivided Family (in short "H.U.F.") for the value of Rs.10,000/- each on 27.2.1997. The maturity value was Rs.20,000/- each and the maturity date was 26.8.2002. After expiry of maturity date, the respondent applied for encashment of maturity value. The matter was put off on one pretext or the other. After lapse of 10 months, the respondent was paid a sum of Rs.1,01,408/- against the maturity value of Rs.1,60,000/-. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of appellant, respondent filed complaint in the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ropar ( in short "learned District Fourm'). Interest, compensation and cost was prayed.
2. The appellants filed written reply. All other facts were admitted. It was pleaded that purchase of K.V.Ps. for a sum of Rs.10,000/- First Appeal No.231 of 2004 2 each in the name of H.U.F. by the respondent as Karta was irregular and was against the statutory provision. Therefore, the respondent was entitled only to face value of K.V.Ps. Hence, it was prayed that complaint be dismissed.
3. Parties led evidence in support of their respective version by way of affidavits and documents.
4. After considering the pleadings of the parties and the affidavits/ documents produced on the file by them, the learned District Forum accepted the complaint vide order dated 9.1.2004 with costs of Rs.1500/- and the appellants were directed to pay the balance amounting to Rs.58,592/- and to pay compensation amounting to Rs.15,700/-
5. Hence the appeal.
6. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants was that the purchase of K.V.Ps by the respondent in the name of H.U.F. was in violation of rules. Therefore, the respondent was not entitled to the maturity value. It was prayed that appeal be accepted and impugned order dated 9.1.2004 be set aside.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is no merit in the appeal and appeal be dismissed.
8. Record has been perused. Submission has been considered.
9. Admittedly, the K.V.Ps. could not have been purchased in the name of H.U.F. as it was in contravention of Rules. The respondent was at fault in purchasing the K.V.Ps. in the name of H.U.F. in violation of rules thereof. At the same time, the appellants were also at fault in accepting the money of K.V.Ps. against the rules and retaining the same for such a long time.
10. Some judgments are in favour of the appellants and some judgments are against the appellants.
First Appeal No.231 of 2004 3
11. Since the Consumer Fora under the Consumer Protection Act are justice-oriented Courts shorn of all technicalities, therefore, the Hon'ble National Commission in the judgment dated 01.09.2009 passed in Revision Petition No.2180 of 2004 "Senior Post Master v. Arvind Industries" was pleased to strike a balance between the two extreme views, on the basis of equitable justice. Neither the interest was paid which was permissible at the K.V.Ps rate nor it was paid at the saving bank rate which the respondents offered. The Hon'ble National Commission had granted interest @ 6% p.a. on the amount from the date of deposit till the date of payment by observing as under : -
"We agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Kisan Vikas Patras could not be purchased in the name of HUF and that, the purchase of the Kisan Vikas Patras by the respondent was irregular. The respondent would not be entitled to get Rs.1,60,000/- on maturity. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has kept the money deposited by the respondent and utilized it for all this period in equity, we direct the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.80,000/- which was deposited by the respondent, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, as has been held in consultation with Government of India in certain other cases, from the date of deposit till the amount is/was paid to the respondent."
12. Keeping in view the discussions held above, this appeal is partly accepted and the impugned order dated 9.1.2004 is modified and the respondent is held entitled only to the interest at the rate of 6% per First Appeal No.231 of 2004 4 annum on the principal amount deposited from the date of deposit till the date of payment along with the amount invested.
13. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 27.2.2004. This amount of Rs.25,000/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellants.
14. The respondent admitted having received Rs.1,01,408/- (It was the principal amount of Rs.80,000/- plus interest amount of Rs.21,408/- at the saving bank rate). Therefore Rs.25,000/- were deposited by the appellants towards interest beside the interest amount of Rs.21,408/-already paid. Remaining amount, if any, shall be paid by the appellants to the respondent within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which appellants shall be liable to pay another amount of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent as cost /compensation for the delay.
15. The arguments were heard in this case on 8.10.2009 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
16. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(Justice S.N.Aggarwal) President (Lt.Col.Darshan Singh [Retd.]) Member (Piare Lal Garg) Member October 16, 2009.
Davinder