National Consumer Disputes Redressal
K.M. Singh vs Senior Post Master, Ramesh Nagar New ... on 15 November, 2002
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1020 OF 2002 (From the order dated 25.10.2001 in Appeal No.A-2146/01 of the State Commission, Delhi) K.M. Singh Petitioner Vs. Senior Post Master, Ramesh Nagar New Delhi Respondent BEFORE: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE D.P. WADHWA, PRESIDENT HONBLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MEHRA, MEMBER. MR. B.K. TAIMNI, MEMBER. Indian Post Office Act, 1898 - Post Office (monthly income account) Rules 1987 framed under Government Saving Banks Act, 1873 - statutory nature of rule, decision of National Commission in Department of Post and Telegraphs vs. Dr. R.C. Saxena - 1997 (1) CPR 74 - held no good law - prohibition of opening of more than one account under Rule 4 of the Post Office (monthly income account) Rules, 1987. O R D E R
DATED THE 15th November, 2002 JUSTICE D.P. WADHWA, J.(PRESIDENT) K.M. Singh, the complainant is the petitioner before us. He had various monthly income accounts in two different Post Offices, Rajouri Garden and Ramesh Nagar, Head Office. There were 16 such accounts starting from 1993 to 1998. One of such account was closed on 18.12.2000 and five in 2001. It is not necessary for us to give the details of these accounts except to note that a letter dated 16.7.1999 was written by the Post Office to Singh pointing out that two of his accounts were irregular as total share of investment exceeded Rs.2,04,000/-.
The accounts had No.84667 dated 3.1.98 and 82934 dated 8.9.95. Therefore, decision was taken to stop crediting interest in these accounts. Singh complained that he was never told of excess deposit or there was any limit of deposits. In any case he wanted the regularisation of irregular accounts. For that he even approached Post Office. Ultimately complaining deficiency in service Singh went to the District Forum.
It was the case of the Post Office that monthly income scheme is governed by Post Office (monthly income account) Rules 1987 framed by the Central Government in the exercise of its power conferred under Section 15 of the Government Saving Banks Act, 1873. Rule 4 of the said Rules provided that a depositor may open more than one account subject to the condition that deposits in all accounts taken together do not exceed Rs.2,04,000/- which was for a single account and Rs. 4,08,000/- in joint account and from 1.2.2000 this limit was further enhanced respectively to Rs.3.00 lakhs and Rs.6.00 lakhs. Under Rule 17 of the Rules decision was, therefore, taken by the Head Post Office who was competent to take such decision to cause the accounts in excess to be closed and deposits made in these accounts to be refunded to the depositor without interest. Rule 10 no doubt empowers the Central Government to relax the Rules.
It was the case of the complainant that the rule was of administrative nature and meant for the administrative convenience of the Post Office and it did not bar payment of interest in case depositor opened accounts in violation thereof. His other plea was that it was the fault of the agent and the employees of the Post office in getting the accounts opened and not being told of the bar in opening more than prescribed accounts. Singh said that he was quite ignorant of the intricacy of the Rules.
District Forum held that it could not question the virus or illegality of the statutory rules made under the Government Saving Bank Act , 1873 and held that the rule would prevail. On the question of deficiency of service District Forum was of the view that certainly the Post Office was deficient as the agent and employees of the Post Office at the time of opening of the account did not inform Singh of the limit imposed under the Rules. District Forum, therefore, directed the Post office to pay interest on the amounts which exceeded the limits and to be refunded to Singh as per the rules from the date of deposit till 16.8.2000 when competent authority took the final decision directing the Post office to refund to Singh which exceeded the prescribed limit @ 12% per annum. A Sum of Rs.2000/- was also awarded as compensation.
Singh went in appeal to the State Commission which dismissed the same in limine. Aggrieved from the order of the State Commission, Singh has come to the National Commission.
We have examined the relevant provisions of the Government Saving Bank Act, 1873 and the rules framed thereunder. These rules are statutory and have been framed by the Central Government in the exercise of its power conferred by the Act. Singh cannot feign ignorance of these rules. In fact the number of accounts opened by him would rather show that he was quite well versed in the opening of monthly income accounts. Singh referred to the decision of this Commission in the case of Department of Post and Telegraphs vs. Dr. R.C. Saxena
- 1997 (1) CPR 74 wherein in somewhat similar circumstances this Commission held that Rule 4 of the Post Office Savings Bank General Rules 1981 was made for the administrative convenience of the Department and did not bar the payment of interest on an account opened by the depositor in ignorance of that Rule. We are afraid, we are unable to accept the view so expressed earlier. Perhaps in that case National Commission was guided by the facts and circumstance of that case. Here the rules were National Savings Scheme rules, 1987 also framed by the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred on it under Section 15 of the Government Saving Bank Act, 1873.
Rule 4 provided that depositor may open not more than one account under the scheme. This Rule is the law and cannot be said merely administrative instructions. The judgment in the case of Department of Posts & Telegraphs vs. Dr. R.C. Saxena does not, therefore, lay a good law. Singh then referred Rule 10 which as noted above, empowers the Central Government if it is satisfied that operation of any of the provisions of the Rules caused undue hardship to the depositor then it may by order, for reasons to be recorded in laying relxation, requirement of that provision in a manner not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. We are afraid the Central Government should have exercised that power or not under Rule 10 is not for us to decide or comment on.
We, therefore do not find any error in the order of the District Forum which was affirmed by the State Commission to express a contrary view. This petition is, therefore, dismissed.
J (JUSTICE D.P. WADHWA) PRESIDENT J (J.K. MEHRA) MEMBER (B.K. TAIMNI) MEMBER