State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1. The Senior Postmaster, vs All India Handloom Committee, on 29 April, 2011
BEFORE THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
CHENNAI
BEFORE THE TAMILNADU STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI
(BENCH
II)
Present: Thiru.A.K.Annamalai, M.A.,
M.L., M.Phil., Presiding Member
Judicial
Thiru.S.Sambandam, B.Sc., Member
F.A.No.611/2008
[Against order in C.C.No.67/2005
on the file of the DCDRF, Trichirappalli.]
FRIDAY, THE 29th
DAY OF APRIL 2011.
1. The
Senior Postmaster,
Tiruchirappalli.
2. Union
of India,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Ministry of Communications,
Department of Posts,
Dak Bhavan, New Delhi 110 011. .. Appellants/opposite
parties
Vs.
All India
Handloom Committee,
Rep. by
its Secretary,
Assistant
Director of
Handlooms and Textiles .. Respondent/Complainant
The Respondent as complainant filed
a complaint before the District Forum, Tirchirappalli, alleging deficiency
against the opposite parties to pay the maturity value of the 38 National
Savings Certificate being Nos.6NS.21EE 986131 to 986168 at the maturity value
of Rs.7,65,700/-, to pay atleast 12% interest as damages on the maturity value
from the date on which it mature till realization and award costs. The District Forum, allowed the complaint
against the opposite parties. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by
the opposite parties, praying to set aside the order of the District Forum,
Trichirappalli, dated 4.1.08 in C.C.No.67/2005.
This appeal coming before us for
hearing finally on 15.04.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the counsel on both
sides and perused the documents, written submissions as well as the order of
the District Forum, this Commission made the following order :-
Counsel
for the Appellants/opposite parties
: Mr.M.Gopikrishnan, Advocate.
Counsel
for the Respondent/complainant : Mr.M.Desingu, Advocate
ORDER
A.K.ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING MEMBER JUDICIAL
1. The opposite parties are the appellants.
2. The respondent/complainant filed a complaint against opposite parties for the direction of to pay the matured amount of Rs.7,65,700/- from the date of maturity with 12% interest on the basis of deposits made in National Savings Bond and for the cost.
3. The details of the complaint in brief are as follows :- The complainant being the Secretary and Assistant Director of All India Handlooms Committee deposited a sum of Rs.3,80,000/- received from the Handloom Exhibition for 6 years with the value of Rs.10,000/- each in 38 bonds and each bond having maturity value of Rs.20,150/- on the face value of Rs.10,000/- on 23.4.04. After the date of maturity when the amount was claimed a cheque was issued for Rs.7,65,700/- towards maturity value for all the deposits made and subsequently on the instruction of stop payment the cheque was returned and when the complainant sent a notice on 10.6.04 a reply was sent stating that the bonds were issued against the rules for which interest cannot be paid and the principal amount alone was payable. This would amount to deficiency of service and thereby the complainant come forward with this complaint.
4. The opposite parties denied the allegations of the complainant in their written version and they have stated that this deposits were wrongly accepted against the rules under NSC (8) and the complainant is not the authorized person to deposit the same on behalf of the exhibit committee head and thereby a reply was sent about the payment of prinicipal amount alone and thereby there was no deficiency of service and they acted as per the rules and regulations under law.
5. On the basis of both sides materials and after an enquiry the District Forum allowed the complaint with direction to repay the matured value with 6% interest.
6. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum the opposite parties have come forward with this appeal and the grounds of appeal among other things mainly contended that the deposits were received under the 6 year National Savings Scheme for 38 certificates for the value of Rs.3,80,000/- and the certificates were issued on that basis and also the complainant Exhibition Committee is not a legal entity individual or a trust and not eligible to invest its funds in NSC 8 issue as per the NSC 8 issue Rules 1989 issued by Government of India, Ministry of Finance Notification dated 1.5.89.
Hence those deposits are not eligible for the interests as it was received in an irregular manner and thereby the District forum erroneously allowed the complaint.
7. While considering both sides arguments, averments and contentions it is the admitted case of both sides that the complainant has made deposits for Rs.3,80,000/- in 38 NSC 8/6 years certificates in the capacity of Secretary All India Handlooms Committee and it was also admitted those certificates are become matured on 23.4.04 and thereby a cheque was issued for the entire amount of Rs.7,65,700/- as per the matured value and subsequently it was stopped for payment by stating that the deposits are not entitled for interest as per Central Government Notification under NSC 8 Rules 1989.
8. While considering this aspect the Notification was issued in the year 1989 and the deposits were made in the year 1998 nearly after 8 years of the issuance of notification and if really those deposits are not eligible for interest it ought to have been immediately returned to the complainant or to have informed about the same to the complainant. But after keeping the deposits with them for 6 years and after issuing the cheque for the maturity value the opposite parties suddenly woken up from asleep and stopped the payment by stating they are not entitled for interest and to collect Rs.3,80,000/- only as principal amount. The complainants have pointed out the rulings reported in 1998 CPJ 107 (National Commission), 1994 CPJ 201 (NC), 1994 (I) CCC 293, 2002 CPJ 280, 2001 CPJ 352, A.P.No.647/2001 dated 25.7.02 and A.P.No.208/2001 dated 10.10.2001 by TNSC in which it is ruled that when once the National Savings Certificates are issued against the rules as per the rules even though they are not entitled for interests but when the opposite parties received the deposit which was kept with them for such a period they are liable to pay the interest for those deposits and this was reiterated in 2003 CPJ 897 NCDRC. The same ruling are also relied upon by the respondents side in this appeal and further the rulings reported in AIR 2007 Gujarat 72 and 4 2006 CPJ 216 (NC) were also cited in which it is stated as follows :-
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 2(1)(g) NSC 6th Issue Rules, 1989 Rules 4, 11 Contract Act, 1872 Sections 72, 73 Securities NSCs Issuance of certificates in contravention of Rules Entitlement to interest NSCs issued to Town Area Committee Transaction invalid However amount was retained by opposite party Having accepted amount in contravention of Rules and not refusing to issue NSCs, opposite parties guilty of deficiency in service Liable to compensate complainant for loss occasioned on such account Provisions of Sections 72, 73 of Act of 1872 attracted opposite party liable to pay principal amount Towards compensation, no option but to award sum equivalent to inerest payable on maturity of NSCs.
Mahila Sewa Sahakari Bank Ltd. V. Chief Post Master & Ors.
Spl. Civil Appln. No.11574 of 2006 D/- 10-8-2006.
Government Savings Certificates Act (46 of 1959), S.12 Kisan Vikas Patra Rules (1988), R.6 Kisan Vikas Patra Purchase of, by Mahila Co-operative Bank Rules of 1988 did not permit co-operative Bank to purchase Kisan Vikas Patra But Post Office did not inform Bank this fact and accepted the amount Post Office cannot refuse interest accrued thereof on its maturity Principle of unjust enrichment would apply to Govt. and its agencies.
9. In view of the above said rulings it is clear that the complainant is entitled for the interest for the deposits made with the opposite parties even though it was received wrongly against the notification, but retained by the opposite parties till date of maturity to the extent of 5 years or 6 years as the case may be for which the complainant is lawfully entitled for the due interest and as per the second ruling reported principle of unjust enrichment would apply to Government and its agencies also. Accordingly in this case the District Forum has passed a sustainable order in which there is no need for interference by this Commission. As far as the interest is concerned for the matured amount from the date of maturity till date of payment only 6% interest alone was awarded by the District Forum which also needs no interference by this and thereby the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
10. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, by confirming the order of the District Forum, Trichirappalli in C.C.No.67/2005 dated 4.1.08. There will be no order as to cost in this appeal.
S.SAMBANDAM A.K.ANNAMALAI, MEMBER PRESIDING MEMBER JUDICIAL INDEX : YES / NO sg/B-II/aka//Post Off.