F.A. No. 709 of 2013

F.A. No. 710 of 2013

         Heard learned counsel for both the parties.

2.    Since both the appeals arise out of two complaint cases but issues are same and the OPs are same, both the appeals are heard analogously. This common order shall govern the result of both the appeals.

3.      These appeals are filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to these appeals shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.

4.      The case of the complainant in CC No. 115 of 2011 is that  he being a business man has opened a PPF account through postal agent on 31.3.1999 for initial deposit of Rs.2,000/-. It is alleged that the complainant is residing in a HUF and the complainant being the Karta of his own family  opened the PPF Account bearing No. 482 and also having separate pan card. It is also alleged by complainant that his two brothers are also residing separately and they being karta of their respective HUF also opened two separate PPF accounts in 1999. It is also revealed that the complainant has deposited money in very year till audit objection received. It is stated that originally he has deposited Rs.2,000/- which was accepted in that year and also in each year till 2006 by Postal Authorities. It is alleged that on 25.7.2006 audit objection was made by the Auditor of Postal Authorities that only one PPF account can be opened on behalf of HUF by a Karta and accordingly Postal Department issued letter to the complainant about audit objection. It is allegedinter alia that one PPF account can be opened by the Karta of the HUF family as individual becausecomplainant is residing in separate mess with his own children, he has no joint mess with his two brothers. Complainant has opened PPF accounton 31.3.1999 and OPs accepted Rs.60,000/- on 31.3.1999 with initial deposit of Rs.2,000/- and the deposits accordingly in all the years till 2006-07 and the total deposit became Rs.5,98,566/- as on 8.9.2006 but the PPF account was not regularized in spite of deposit of said amount. Therefore, he approached the OPs. Since the OPs did not settle the claim, the complaint was filed.

5.      The case of the complainant in CC No. 116 of 2011 is that being a business man he has opened a FD account on 31.3.1999  for initial deposit of Rs.2,000/-. It s alleged that the complainant is residing in a HUF being karta for his family members and as such opened a PPF account bearing No. 482  and he has also separate pan card. It is alleged that his two brothers also residing separately and they being karta of their respective HUF, opened three separate PPF account in 1999. It is also admitted fact that the complainant continued to deposit money till audit objection made in 2006. It is also stated that originally Rs.2,000/- was made as initial deposit which were accompanied with other amount in each year till 2006. Since the complainant not residing in joint family and they are residing in separate mess sing long, for which, they objected but the allegation not properly been addressed by the OPs. Therefore, complaint was filed.

6.      OPs filed written version in both the cases by stating that due to auditobjection and the case being filed in 2011 is barred by limitation. Further, they took the plea that three account Nos. 482, 488 and 489 were opened on 31.3.1999 at Chandinichowk Head Post Office in the name of S.J.Doshi, ChandrakantaJ.Doshi and VipinJ.Doshi in the address of ChandrakantJayantilal, Nayasarak, Cutack. It is further alleged that all the accounts are same and all being sons of ChandrakantJayantilal areliving in same  address. However, it is admitted that OPs have opened three PPF accounts against respective three brothers separately on 31.3.1999 and accordingly, they were deposited money in different accounts of different amount to their respective accounts in each year till 8.9.2006. But they submitted that at the time of Postal Audit, objections were raised against the three accounts which were opened by the above depositors. Since they can only open one account under PPF Act and Rules, they are not permitted for opening of three separate accounts. Therefore, all the PPF accounts were under the purview of audit objection and the accounts were standing at Chandinichowk Post Office and depositors are not allowed to regularize the accounts under section 10 of the PPF Act, 1968. Therefore, they submitted that they have no deficiency in service.

7.      After hearing the learned counsel for respective parties, the learned District Forum passed the following order in each complaint case:-

“CC No. 115 of 2011

xxxxxxxxx

The complaint petition is allowed on contest against the opp.parties. OP No. 4 is directed to calculate the interest on the PPF account no. 482 which stands in the name of complainant as per the PPF Act and Rules upto Rs.60,000/- & Rs.70,000/- respectively and theexcess amount deposited in the PPF account shall be calculated as per the S.B.Account of the Postal Departmentand the complainant is directed to produce relevant documentsbefore theOP No. 4 in respect of living in separate mess and property for continuation of his account if permissible under the PPF Act and Rules. No order as to cost.

CC No. 116 of 2011

xxxxxxxxx

The complaint petition is allowed on contest against the opp.parties. OP No. 4 is directed to calculate the interest on the PPF account no. 482 which stands in the name of complainant as per the PPF Act and Rules up to Rs.60,000/- & Rs.70,000/- respectively and the excess amount deposited in the PPF account shall be calculated as per the S.B.Account of the Postal Department and the complainant is directed to produce relevant documents before the OP No. 4 in respect of living in separate mess and property for continuation of his account if permissible under the PPF Act and Rules. No order as to cost.”

8.      Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that learned District Forum has committed error in law by not considering the case of the appellants with proper perspectives. According to her each of the complainants has been separated from each other and they are living in separate mess. The address given in the postal account may be same but the brothers have been already separated since long back. Therefore, there is no question of membersHUF  and having the separate pan cards. Learned District Forum without understanding all these facts has passed the order to follow the PPF Act and Rules which is not actually applicable to these cases. According to her the audit objection is simply objection without going through the facts in issue. Therefore, he submitted to set aside the impugned order by allowing the complaint.

9.      Learned Central Govt. Advocate submitted that under the PPF Act and Rules each HUF and Karta can only deposit Rs.70,000/- and no more. Since there is huge amount already deposited, the benefit cannot be extended to the complainants. As such she submitted to carry out the order of the learned District Forum.

 10.   Considered the submission of learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the impugned order including the DFR.

11.    The only question arise in this case whether the restriction under PPF Act and Rules is applicable to the complainants. Complainants are not living in HUF. There is categorically submission that they are living with separate mess and they are no more living in Hindu Undivided Family of their brothersthey are in separate pan cards. The Hindu Undivided Family may be Karta or individual can also retain account of HUF and also personal account. Moreover, the audit objection without going through the facts properly cannot decide the case whether they are entitled to get PPF amount. Since the learned District Forum has not considered all these things and simply passed the impugned order, we do not agree with it. Therefore, we set aside the said order and allow  each of the complainants to continue with the PPF accounts individually or karta of their own family and benefit accrued thereon be paid to the complainants within 45 days failing  which each of the account will carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

12.    Both the appeals are allowed. No cost.

          DFR be sent back forthwith.

Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.