Date of Filing:       17.05.2016

                                                                                                                       Date of Disposal:  01.03.2019

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

THIRUVALLUR-1

PRESENT: THIRU.  J. JUSTIN DAVID, M.A., M.L.,                      .…. PRESIDENT

                   TMT.      K. PRAMEELA, M.Com.,                               ….. MEMBER-I

                   THIRU.  D.BABU VARADHARAJAN, B.Sc., B.L.,       ..… MEMBER-2

CC No.24/2016

FRIDAY, THE 01^st  DAY OF MARCH 2019

1.Mrs.K.S.Lakshmi,

    Super Senior Citizen,

   65, South Tank Street,

   Thiruvallur Town – 602 001.

2.Mrs. K.Vijaya Lakshmi,

W/o.Mr.N.Kannan,

    Now Residing at 1/24-1 Allameen Nagar,

    Selvi Nagar end

    Surveyor Colony, K.Pudur,

    Madurai -625 007.

3.Mr.K.Ramani,

    65, South Tank Street,

    Thiruvallur Town – 602 001.                                                  ……Complainant.

                                                                       //Vs//

1.Head post Master,

   Thiruvallur Head Post Office,

   Thiruvallur Town -602 001.

2.Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices,

    Head Post Office,

    Thiruvallur – 602 001.

3.Superintendent of post offices,

   Kanchipuram Division,

   Kanchipuram – 631 501.                                                  …..Opposite parties.

The complaint is coming upon before us finally on 22.02.2019 in the presence of Thiru. K.Ramani, who is appeared in person and M/s.L.Ravichandran, Counsel for the opposite parties and upon hearing arguments and perused the documents and evidences this forum, delivered the following:-

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY THIRU.J.JUSTIN DAVID, PRESIDENT.

This complaint is filed by the complainants U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act-1986 against the opposite parties for seeking direction to refund a sum of Rs.5,57,873/-  with 12%- interest and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony, hardship due to the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and with cost.

2.The brief averments of the complaint is as follows:-

The complainants have opened MIS&SCSS accounts through Authorized postal agents only.  All the MIS deposits were matured & encashed without any problems from 25.03.2009 to 04.03.2011. Meanwhile senior citizen scheme on single account No.1160 of the 1^st complainant K.S.Lakshmi with maturity value of Rs.5,33,000/- was matured on 07.10.2015.  When the 2^nd complainant reached the post office, the opposite parties collected SCSS book and closing form and asked to come on next day. When next day the 2^nd complainant approached the counter clerk with withdrawal slip for Rs.5,57,000/- (Available balance Rs.5,57,873), she asked to approach the counter APM, in turn, the counter APM is directed to Head post Master, H.P.M. to savings Bank control organization, they are directed again back to post Master, Thiruvallur.  Finally Post Master, HPO, Thiruvallur told that there was an audit debit around Rs.2,50,000/- raised in the year of 2010-11 for keeping more deposit in MIS account.  Hence post Master said the transaction to joint Savings Bank Account of three members is freezed and for any redressal, they should get orders from S.P.M. Kanchipuram only and post Master could not help. Immediately, 2^nd complainant gave a letter to post Master, Thiruvallur stating that freezing savings bank account without adopting procedure is illegal.  Thereafter the SPM was contacted for redressal by post Master for which the complainant received a letter on 10.10.2 from S.P.M., Kanchipuram stating that six MIS account, out of 15 was excess and hence the complainant are supposed to pay Rs.2,84,900/-  (in next line they mentioned Rs.2,84,000/-) as excess interest paid Rs.2,07,900/- and Rs.77,000/- excess agent commission and bonus) without giving following particulars.

1. The rule the complainant have violated

2. What option they have taken to intimate us about the excess limit on MIS rule.

3. Since all accounts are in different periods, they did not mention the excess period for individuals.

 Further, the complainants received a letter from the Post Master, Head Post Office, Thiruvallur on 12.10.2015 stating SB account Debit transaction has been freezed to K.S.Lakshmi only and not to other two joint holder.  After getting savings Bank account freezed notice, officially the complainant requested SPM, Kanchipuram with copy to Post Master, Thiruvallur, to defreeze 3 persons savings Bank account which was freezed without following any legal procedures and also brought to light the following features:

1. All MIS accounts interests were automatically credited to savings Bank Account though there is a provision to withdraw individual interest directly by using withdrawal slip.
2. Every financial year the 1^st complainant was giving 15 H Form in duplicate quoting all the MIS&SCSS account No’s in set of form for income Tax exemption.
3. Since interests were credited automatically to savings Bank Account, S.B. Counter Clerk, Asst. Post Master/Counter who is countersigning the individual S.B., account entries, Saving Bank Control organization staff who transfer the interest to savings Bank Account all aware about this.
4. if so, why anyone of them did not inform or make efforts to inform deposit holders so that the complainant can close pre-maturely (savings Bank Account law permits to allow saving Bank interest for excess account)

 It should be noted that almost every month interests were withdrawn from savings banks account in person; i.e., attended at least once in a month and once in 3 months all MIS books were presented for monthly entries.  But SPM, Kanchipuram not having the courtesy to reply us; but he ordered to ASPO to recover the excess payment. The 3^rd complainant went to meet ASPO office on 26.10.2015 &27.10.2015 ASPO being an inspecting official he was not available, no clerical staff available under his control.  Both the days Post Master, Thiruvallur was intimated about his arrival as ASPO office was on the first floor of Thiruvallur Head post office, again informed to post Master, Head post office, Thiruvallur.  On the same day a registered letter sent to him from the same post office stating the complainants are in need of money urgently and ASPO, Thiruvallur received the letter on 09.11.2015.  Since no reply from anyone for redressal, on 09.12.2015, there were two registered letters despatched to head post master, Thiruvallur and S.P.O, Kanchipuram.  They acknowledged on 11.12.2015 & 14.12.2015 respectively for which as usual S.P.O, Kanchipuram order to post master, Thiruvallur to withdraw Rs.2,84,900/-from the complainant savings bank account No.0599007880 and credit the same Under UCR and a copy to the complainant for information.  Because of the postal department negligence, the house could not be repaired in time, because of heavy crack, now the repairer says that cannot be repaired, the middle portion of the house to be completely demolished and to reconstruct which will be costing at least about 5 lakhs. Because of the postal department staff ignorance of rules and service deficiency and non-cooperation for redressal all the three complainants are put up mental torture , mental agony and forced to live in unsafe condition house, unable to work free mind in duty spot.  Hence this complaint.

3. The contention of written version of the opposite parties is briefly as follows:-

 The petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts, and in limini it shall be dismissed with exemplary cost.  The 1^st to 3^rd opposite parties denied all the averments and allegation contained in the complaint. The monthly income scheme accounts are either in the name of Smt.K.S.Lakshmi, the 1^st complainant or in joint with Smt.K.Vijajalakshmi, the 2^nd complainant and Shri.Ramani, the 3^rd complainant.  Further it is noticed that the depositors/2^nd and 3^rd complainant put together opened MIS account.   The saving Bank account carries all the three depositors and not restricted with complainants’ 1 & 2 as narrated in the 3^rd paragraphs of the complaint. The SCSS account No.0599202847 (1160), the account was opened on 07.10.2010 for Rs.5,33,000/- at Thiruvallur HO through Shri.T.Purushothaman, SAS Agent No.32/90-91,  Door.No.45/19, kanakavallipuram Street, Thiruvallur – 602 001. The complainant has opened MIS account in both Thiruvallur HO and Thiruvallur Bazzar also.  Since both offices were not having inter connectivity, the excessively deposited amount to the maximum of Rs.6,00,000/- could not be traced at the time of opening/ closing.   Smt. K.S. Lakshmi attended the counter only on 08.10.2015 and closed her SCSS account and closure amount was credited into her Saving Bank Account No.0599007880 (4212659).  The complainant has approached the Thiruvallur HO counter to take withdrawal from her Saving Bank account No.0599007880 (4212659 on 12.10.2015 only and not on 08.10.2015 as stated by the complainant.  The customer was asked to contact the post Master, ThiruvallurHO before giving withdrawal at the counter.  The complainant was well informed about the audit objection for excess deposits made above the authorized ceiling.  To avoid erroneous withdrawal at the counter the account was temporarily freezed.  This fact was also brought to the notice of complainant. The complainant was requested to pay a sum of Rs.2,84,900/- as excessively paid interest along with bonus paid vide DO letter No. E/AIR-2010/TLR, HO/ Dlgs dated 01.10.2015 besides so many reminder letters communicated to the 1^st complainant and 3^rd complainant were well informed about the rule, the individual excess amount by many correspondences.  The letter dated 12.10.2015 from postmaster, Thiruvallur HO was addressed only to Smt.K.S.Lakshmi and the other depositor namely Shri.K.Ramani was informed vide this office Lr.No.E/AIR 2011/TLR HO dated 19.05.2014, 18.08.2014, 27.09.2014, 13.02.2015 and 08.10.2015.  But, there was no response from them. Smt.K.Vijayalakshmi, the 2^nd complainant one of the above SB account holder, formerly belonged to department of posts and worked as Postal Assistant, Savings bank control organization, Thiruvallur HO and then transferred to Madurai HO.  While working as such, she would have been well aware of the ceiling limits in respect of MIS accounts at the branch she worked in the supervising/monitoring the types of accounts of post offices.  The Audit objection was raised for the accounts opened over and above the prescribed ceiling.  The complainant approached the post office for receiving interest with SB pass book and with current MIS passbooks for entry of interest and not with closed one.  Hence the fact of excess deposits could not be ascertained at this juncture.  The duties of ASPOs, Thiruvallur Sub Division i.e., the 2^nd opposite party mainly dealt with outdoor, being an inspectorial staff his presence in the office could not be determined.  This may leads to the complaint for non liaison of ASPOs Thiruvallur, i.e., the 2^nd opposite party.   In spite of several request made to the complainants, they did not turn up to the post office and not credited the said amount of Rs.2,84,900/-.  To cater the request put forth by the complainant to unfreeze the SB account and to settle the case, the mentioned amount was technically withdrawn and credited into the Governments accounts. The complainant has preferred a RTI application on 26.11.2015 and promptly replied vide this office letter No.SB/RTI 21.01.2016.  In the year 1980 one of the depositors Smt.K.Vijayalakshmi, the 2^nd complainant herein willfully opened MIS accounts in two different offices by knowing the fact of non- inter connectivity amongst the offices.  All the MIS account was opened over and above the authorized maximum ceiling prescribed by the department by the depositors one and all.  Hence, the action of the SPM, Kancheepuram, the 3^rd opposite party is in order.  Hence, there is no dereliction of duties negligent and failure to redress the depositors/complainant.  Hence this complaint may be dismissed.

4. In order to prove the case, on the side of the complainant, the proof Affidavit submitted as his evidence and Ex.A1to Ex.A16 were marked.  While so, on the side of the opposite parties proof Affidavit filed as his evidence and Ex.B1 to Ex.B15 were marked. Further written arguments filed and oral arguments also adduced on both sides.

5.At this juncture, the point for consideration before this Forum is:-

1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?

2) Whether the complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-?

3) Whether the opposite party is liable to refund of Rs.5,57,873/- with 12% interest to the complainant?

4) Whether the opposite party is liable to pay Rs.3,50,000/- to the complainant towards cost of demolition and reconstruction of rooms?

5) Whether the complainant is entitled for cost of the proceedings?

     6) To what other reliefs, the complainant is entitled?

6. Point No.1,2 & 5:-

The case of the complainants are the complainants have opened Monthly Income Scheme (MIS) and some amount deposited with the opposite parties in the year of 2006-2007, all the MIS deposits were matured and encashed without any problem from 2009-2011.  In the mean time, the 1^st complainant’s Senior Citizen Saving Scheme (SCSS) with maturity value Rs.5,33,000/- was matured on 07.10.2015.  When the 2^nd complainant approached the opposite parties that they informed there was on audit debit around Rs.2,50,000/- raised in the year of 2010-2011 for keeping more deposit in MIS-account and therefore the opposite parties freezed the complainants account without following the procedure and committed deficiency in service by not returning the maturity amount.

7. The opposite parties contended that the complainants have opened MIS account in both Thiruvallur Head Post Office and Thiruvallur Bazzar Sub Office and deposited more than the maximum amount, when the 2^nd complainant approached the opposite parties for withdrawal, the opposite parties informed about the auditor objection for excess deposits made above the authorized ceiling limit in respect of MIS account and the complainants are deposited more than the maximum amount of deposit and therefore  the excess amount of Rs.2,84,900/- unfreezed in the saving bank account of the 1^st complainant and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

8. The complainants have opened MIS account at Thiruvallur Head Post Office in the year of 2006-2007.  Ex.B2 is the SCSS account opening form of the 1^st complainant in the year 2006, in ExB2 it is stated that the complainant opened the account No.1140 on 17.06.2006 and paid Rs.8,67,000/- and another account No.1103 on 14.12.2008 and paid Rs.50,000/- and also another account No.1104 on 04.12.2008 paid Rs.5,00,000/-.  Further the 1^st complainant opened another account No.1160 on 07.10.2010 and deposited Rs.5,33,000/- under senior citizen saving scheme -2004.

9.   The opposite parties contended that the 1^st complainant deposited excess amount more than the ceiling limit prescribed in rule 4 of monthly income account scheme.  As per rule (4) of MIS rules the depositor(s) may operate more than one account subject to the condition that deposits in all accounts taken together shall not exceed Rs.3,00,000/- in single account and Rs.6,00,000/- in joint  account, three persons can open three single account for Rs.3,00,000/- each totaling of Rs.9,00,000/-, these three persons can invest Rs.9,00,000/- jointly in three joint accounts of Rs.3,00,000/-each or by opening two accounts, one for Rs.6,00,000/- and other for Rs.3,00,000/- in order to complete the share of Rs.3,00,000/- of each adult.  Further Ex.B10 is the post office monthly income account rules 1987 APTER-8 section 4 read as follows:-

Opening of account:- a depositor(s) may operate more than one account under these rules subject to the conditions that deposits in all accounts taken together shall not exceed rupees Four lakh fifty thousands in single account and rupees nine lakh in joint account.

( Min. of finance,(DEA) has amended rule 4 and rule 5(1) of post office monthly income account rules 1987 vide its notification dated 01.08.2007 issued vide file No.2/10/207-NS-II)

10. Hence the maximum limit of Rs.9,00,000/- in joint account was permitted from 01.08.2007 but the 1^st complainant has deposited more than the prescribed limit of Rs.9,00,000/- in violation of the rules 4 of post office monthly income account rules 1987.  In Ex.B2 it is clearly stated that the 1^st complainant shall adhere to the ceiling of deposit, taking the deposit in all the accounts opened together specified in rule 4 and amended from time to time.  The 1^st complainant also accepted the same and signed in Ex.B2.  Now this Forum is to find out whether the complainant was having the knowledge about the ceiling limit of deposit specified in rule 4 of the post office monthly income accounts rules 1987.  The complainants were deposited amount from the year 2006-07 onwards.  As per document the 1^st complainant has deposited 8,67,000/- on 17.06.2006 but as per rule 4 in the year 2006, the maximum deposit for joint account is Rs.6,00,000/- and the same was raised as 9,00,000/- from 01.08.2007 and the opposite parties accepted the deposit amount and issued pass book.  The rule regarding the maximum deposit limit was not brought to the knowledge of the 1^st complainant.  If the maximum limit of deposit brought to the knowledge of the 1^st complainant then she might have deposited the excess amounts in other financial institution.  It is the duty of the opposite parties to inform about the maximum limit of deposit prescribed in rule 4.  Further in the pass book issued by the opposite party also not mentioned about the amount of maximum limit but it is stated that the depositors shall adhere the ceiling on deposit.  The maximum amount deposited is not mentioned in Ex.B2.  Further the ceiling on deposit also amended time to time and from 01.08.2007 on wards, maximum limit of deposit in joint account increased from 6,00,000/- to 9,00,000/-.  Hence it is the duty of the opposite parties to inform the complainant about the maximum limit of deposit but herein in this complaint, the opposite parties failed to inform about the maximum limit of deposit to the complainant.  Further the complainant deposited the amount through authorized agent in turn the authorized agent accepted the amount and opposite parties also issued pass book.  The opposite parties neither refused the excess deposit amount more than the ceiling limit nor return the excess amount to the complainant.  On the other hand the opposite parties accepted the deposit and paid interest till 2010. The alleged deposit of excess amount was brought to the notice of the opposite parties in the year of 2011 by local audit inspection.  Ex.A4 is the local audit inspection report dated 28.04.2011 in which it is stated as follows:-

I.On scrutiny of MIS accounts of Tiruvallur HPO through sanchay post, it was notice that, one depositor named Mrs. Lakshmi along with Mr.Ramini had deposited Rs.13,70,000/- on various dated during 2003 to 2005.  All the deposits were closed on maturity and credited to above depositor’s SB account (SB A/c no.4212659) as detailed in the Annexure-1.  The maximum prescribed limit of Rs.6,00,000/- upto 31.08.2007 was not followed resulting in irregular deposit of Rs.7,70,000/- and consequent excess payment of interest and bonus amounting to Rs.2,84,900/-.  Further a commission of Rs.7,700/- was also paid on the irregular deposit to agents in respect of 15 accounts.

On being pointed out, it was replied that the cases would be verified and action would be taken to recover excess payment under intimation to audit.

II. The maximum deposit permissible under the rules in single and joint account in Rs.3,00,000/- lakh and Rs.6,00,000/- respectively upto 31.07.2007 and Rs.4,50,000/-lakh and Rs.9,00,000/- respectively from 1.08.2007.  No further deposit should be accepted beyond this limit (MOF (DEA) notification no.GSR 521 (E) dated 01.08.2007) (Chapter 13, Rule 4 of poss, part-I)

11. The 1^st complainant was unable to get the matured amount from the opposite parties and the opposite parties also freezed the excess amount and thereafter defreezed the excess amount to transfer to the Saving Bank account of the 1^st complainant.  Hence the excess amount is credited in the saving banking account of the complainant but the 1^st complainant was unable to utilize the amount.

12. The opposite parties neither informed to the complaint about the maximum ceiling limit for deposit under monthly income scheme nor refused to deposit the excess amount as per rule 4 of post office monthly income scheme rules.  The opposite parties accepted the excess deposit amount and paid interest from 2006 to 2011. Therefore the opposite parties committed deficiency in service because of the deficiency in service the complainant is unable to utilize the amount and therefore the complainant has undergone mental and physical agony.  Under these circumstances the 1^st complainant is entitled for compensation and cost of the proceedings.

13. Point No.3 and 4:-

The complainants filed this complaint not only for compensation and also refund of balance amount of Rs.5,57,873/-.  Regarding refund of the above said amount the complainants have deposited more than the ceiling limit in violation of the rule and thereby the opposite parties freezed excess amount and thereafter defreezed the same and transfer to the saving bank account of the 1^st complainant.  Therefore, the 1^st complainant is entitled for refund of excess deposit with interest as per rules.  But this Forum is unable to pass an order regarding refund of the entire balance amount of Rs.5,57,873/- as required by the complainant which is in violation of the rule.  The complainants argued that this Forum has the power to order refund of the entire excess deposit with interest and relied on a decision reported in

IV 2005 CPJ 174 NATIONAL COMMISSION.NEW DELHI.

K.M.Singh                                ………..Appellant

                          //Vs//

Post Master                               ….. Respondent

It is held that the District Forum held that it could not question the illegality or other wise of the statutory rules.  However, on the question of deficiency of service, the District Forum held that the post office was deficient as the agent and employees of the post office did not inform the complainant of the limit imposed under the rules.  Accordingly, the District Forum in its order dated 18.08.2001 directed the post office to pay interest on the amounts which exceeded the limits and to be refunded to the complainant as per the rules from the date of deposit till 16.08.2000 when competent authority took the final decision directing the post office to refund to the complainant which exceeded in the prescribed limit@12% per annum.  A sum of Rs.2,000/- was also awarded as compensation.

After hearing the complainant in person and also learned counsel for the respondent at great length, we come to the conclusion that there is no error apparent in the detailed calculation sheet submitted on affidavit by the respondent.  However, as the amount of Rs.4,05,550/- directed to be paid to the complainant by the District Forum as per order dated 18.08.2001 was not received by the complainant.  However, the complainant has received this amount under protest as per the order of this Commission dated 14.07.2004.  Accordingly, we direct the respondent to pay 12% interest on this amount from 18.08.2001 to 14.07.2004.  In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to cost.  Revision petition is disposed of accordingly.

14. In this complaint also the 1^st complainant deposited more than the ceiling limit and therefore the excess amount is to be returned to the 1^st complainant as per rules.  Therefore the opposite parties are directed to refund the excess deposit amount with interest as per rules.  Further, in respect of demolition and reconstruction of rooms, the complainant have claimed Rs.3,50,000/-.  But the complainants have not filed any documents to prove the same therefore the complainants have not entitled for Rs.3,50,000/- towards cost of demolition and reconstruction from the opposite parties.  Thus the points No.4 and 5 are answered accordingly.

15. The 1^st opposite party is Head Post Master, Thiruvallur Head Post Office, 2^nd opposite party is the Assistant Superintendent of Post offices, Thiruvallur Head Post Office and 3^rd opposite party is Superintendent of post officer, Kanchipuram are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the 1^st complainant.  Further there is no claim for 1^st and 2^nd complainants and therefore the 1^st complainant is only entitled for compensation.

16. Point No.6:-

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.  Accordingly, the Opposite Parties1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to refund the balance deposit amount with interest to the 1^st complainant as per rules. The opposite parties further directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) towards compensation for causing mental agony and financial loss due to the deficiency of service on the part of the  Opposite parties 1 to 3 and to pay a sum Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) towards cost of litigation to the 1^st complainant.

The above amount shall be payable by the opposite parties1 to 3 within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum till the date of payment.

Dictated by the president to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the president and pronounced by us in the open Forum of this 01^st March 2019.

MEMBER –II                                      MEMBER-I                       PRESIDENT

List of document filed by the complainants:-

List of documents filed by the opposite parties:-

-Sd-                                                          -Sd-                                      -Sd-

MEMBER –II                                      MEMBER-I                       PRESIDENT