Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/302/2014

M/s.S.Sunder Raman - Complainant(s)

Versus

Asst.Sub Post Master - Opp.Party(s)

K.Ganesan

15 Oct 2015

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   02.07. 2014

                                                                        Date of Order :   15.10.2015.

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI(SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM M.A.M.L.,                     : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

                 DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

 

C.C.NO.302/2014

              THURSDAY THIS  15^TH  DAY OF OCTOBER  2015     

 

Mr. S.Sunder Raman,

Q-77, Anna Nagar,

Chennai – 40.                                     ..Complainant

                                      ..Vs..

 

1. The Assistant Post Master,

Chetpet Post Office,

Chennai – 31.

 

2. The Senior Superintendent of PO’s

Chennai City North Division,

Chennai 600 008.                                            ..Opposite parties.

 

 

For the Complainant                 :  M/s. K. Ganesan & Mrs. A.Asha Rao.  

 

For the Opposite parties            :  M/s. A.Ashok Kumar & another  

 

        This complaint is being filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the C.P. Act 1986 for a direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.16,44,478/- with interest and also to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation  with cost of the complaint to the complainant.

ORDER

 

THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM PRESIDENT

 

         

1.The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:-

The complainant is holding a PPF-HUF account bearing No.48 in the capacity of  Karta of the HUF in Post office, the 1^st opposite party herein.  The 2^nd opposite party is higher authority of the 1^st opposite party.  The said PPF-HUF account was maintained since 1989 by the complainant by depositing various amounts from time to time till 31.3.2014 with the extension of the account by the opposite party authorities in the year 2009.  The opposite parties have made necessary entries for the receipt of the deposit amount and interest thereon then and there till.  As such the balance as on 31.3.2013 stood as Rs.16,44,478/- as per the said pass book.  The complainant has stated that he has received letter from the opposite party dated 19.7.2013 mentioning the Gazette notification No.GR 956E dated 7^th December 2010 stating that as per the said notification the PPF –HUF account  prior to 2005 cannot be extended will cease to earn interest after maturity and instructed the complainant to close the account immediately on maturity.   The said act of the opposite party and the letter mentioned contention are not sustainable in law which appears to be giving effect to retrospective effect for the said G.O. which is not permissible in law.  The complainant also stated that he has also received another letter dated 21.4.2014 from the opposite parties informing that account has been closed and cease to earn interest from 31.3.2011, the complainant have to forego the accrued interest of Rs.2,33,622/- and the final payment stands Rs.14,10,856/- only as against the Rs.16,44,478/- the said contention made by the opposite parties in the above said account of the complainant is highly illegal and opposed to principles of natural justice.   As such the opposite parties have committed deficiency of service without settling the amount with interest as per the account as on 31.3.2013 despite of demands made by the complainant, as such which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant and the opposite party is liable to return the said amount and also to pay compensation and litigation charges to the complainant.   Hence the above complaint.    

Written version of  opposite parties  are  as follows:-

2.     It denies all the averments and allegation contained in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein.  The 2^nd opposite party states that as per Gazette Notification No.286 (E) dated 13.5.2005 circulated vide SB order No.10/2004 dated 23.6.2005 only individuals can open PPF accounts from 13.5.2005.   Otherwise further clarified through various orders from time to time that existing accounts can continue till their maturity period but cannot be extended further.   Again the Government of India vide Gazette Notification No.G.S.R.956(E), dated 7^th December 2010 it was clarified that the PPF accounts opened in the name of HUF prior to 13.5.2005 but have already been matured and not yet closed, shall be closed on 31.3.2011 after which no further interest shall be admissible.   Further stated that as per the above  Gazette Notification and Government orders thereon the complainant is eligible to get accrued PPF rate of interest till 31.3.2009 against the outstanding amounts.   The complainant is not eligible for PPF interest or Saving bank interest for a sum of Rs.9,53,237/- available as on 31.3.2009.  He is not eligible for remaining amount of Rs.2,99,000/- made after 31.3.2009.   Admittedly the complainant paid the subscription of Rs.2,99,000/- against the Government Notification, the complainant is not entitled to be paid interest for the irregular subscription made by him on the respective dates.  It is true that the amount subscribed by the complainant has been reflected in the pass book of the complainant  and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and the complaint is to be dismissed.

3.   Complainant has filed his Proof affidavit and  Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 were marked on the side of the complainant.   Opposite parties have filed their  proof affidavit and Ex.B1 was marked on the side of the opposite parties. 

4.         The points that arise for consideration are as follows:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties ?

 

2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?  

 

 

5.      POINTS 1 & 2 :

 Perused the complaint  filed by the complainant, written version filed by the  opposite parties, proof affidavit filed by the complainant and the  opposite parties and  Ex.A1 to Ex.A7  marked on the side of the complainant and Ex.B1 marked on the side of the opposite parties and considered both side arguments.

6.     There is no dispute between the parties that the complainant is holding a PPF-HUF account bearing No.48 in the capacity of  Karta of the HUF in Post office, the 1^st opposite party herein.  The 2^nd opposite party is higher authority of the 1^st opposite party.  The said PPF-HUF account was maintained since 1989 by the complainant by depositing various amounts from time to time till 31.3.2014 with the extension of the account by the opposite party authorities in the year 2009.  The opposite parties have made necessary entries for the receipt of the deposit amount and interest thereon then and there till.   As such the balance as on 31.3.2013 stood as Rs.16,44,478/- as per the said pass book.  The copy of the said pass book is filed as Ex.A1.

7.     The complainant has stated that the has received letter from the opposite party dated 19.7.2013 mentioning the Gazette notification No.GR 956E dated 7^th December 2010 stating that as per the said notification the PPF –HUF account  prior to 2005 cannot be extended will cease to earn interest after maturity and instructed the complainant to close the account immediately on maturity.   The said act of the opposite party and the letter mentioned contention are not sustainable in law which appears to be giving effect to retrospective effect for the said G.O. which is not permissible in law.  The complainant also stated that he has also received another letter dated 21.4.2014 from the opposite parties informing that account has been closed and cease to earn interest from 31.3.2011, the complainant have to forego the accrued interest of Rs.2,33,622/- and the final payment stands Rs.14,10,856/- only as against the Rs.16,44,478/- the said contention made by the opposite parties in the above said account of the complainant is highly illegal and opposed to principles of natural justice.   As such the opposite parties have committed deficiency of service without settling the amount with interest as per the account as on 31.3.2013 despite of demands made by the complainant, as such which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant and the opposite party is liable to return the said amount and also to pay compensation and litigation charges to the complainant.

8.     Whereas the opposite parties has resisted the complaint by saying that as per Gazette Notification No.286 (E) dated 13.5.2005 circulated vide SB order No.10/2004 dated 23.6.2005 only individuals can open PPF accounts from 13.5.2005.   Otherwise further clarified through various orders from time to time that existing accounts can continue till their maturity period but cannot be extended further.   Again the Government of India vide Gazette Notification No.G.S.R.956(E), dated 7^th December 2010 it was clarified that the PPF accounts opened in the name of HUF prior to 13.5.2005 but have already been matured and not yet closed, shall be closed on 31.3.2011 after which no further interest shall be admissible.   Further stated that as per the above  Gazette Notification and Government orders thereon the complainant is eligible to get accrued PPF rate of interest till 31.3.2009 against the outstanding amounts.   The complainant is not eligible for PPF interest or Saving bank interest for a sum of Rs.9,53,237/- available as on 31.3.2009.  He is not eligible for remaining amount of Rs.2,99,000/- made after 31.3.2009.  Accordingly, the opposite party has stated that necessary entry in the pass book were made and the complainant is eligible to receive a sum of  Rs.14,10,856/- only and necessary departmental letter to that effect dated 21.4.2014 also issued to the complainant.   Contrary to this, the claim made by the complainant in the complaint is not valid and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and the complaint is to be dismissed.

9.     However considering the case of the opposite parties on the basis of averments made in their written version as well as in the proof affidavit and the document relied upon by them it reveals that contrary to the issuance of Gazette referred by the opposite parties mentioned above the staff and officers of the 1^st opposite party post office without following and observing the said Gazette notification, they have  been allowed the complainant to make deposits and made necessary entries in the pass book adding interest then and also extending the said period of account till 31.3.2013 which appeared to be dereliction of duty and negligence on the part of the concerned staff and officers of the 1^st opposite party post office who have dealt with the said account.  Though this has been not specifically admitted by the opposite parties in this case, this can be proved by going through entries found in the pass book of the said account filed as Ex.A1.  Further though the opposite parties have referred the said Gazette notification and further clarification and notifications in relating to complaint mentioned account by stating that it had to be closed earlier as per the Government order extended.  But on the other hand they have simply allowed the complainant by permitting him to make deposit and also extended further period of five years till 31.3.2009.   The  1^st opposite party post office staff and officer concerned with the complaint mentioned account of the complainant are responsible and the said act of the opposite parties  amount to dereliction of duty and also amount to deficiency of service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.   Therefore for the act of the concerned staffs and officer who have handled the complaint mentioned account of absence of  duty conscious and dereliction of duty for which the opposite party department i.e. Indian Post office is vicariously liable.  Further the opposite parties the Indian Post Office have remitted and retaining the said amounts deposited by complainant with them as sum, they are liable to pay interest to the complainant for the said period.

10.    Therefore we are of the considered view that as submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that the complainant being the innocent depositor for the amount deposited in the account as per the pass book entries found thereon as on date 31.3.2013 the complainant is entitled to receive a sum of Rs.16,44,478/- from the opposite parties.  Even if the said account supposed to be closed as on that date the said amount disbursed to the complainant but the opposite parties have not paid the said amount till this date to the complainant by retaining the said amount without closing the account and paying to the complainant, the opposite party / the postal department would have benefited out of the said amount.  Therefore the opposite parties / Postal department is liable to pay the said amount to the complainant with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 13.3.2013 to till the date of payment and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges to the complainant.   Further though the complainant has claimed compensation,  Considering the facts and circumstances of this case since interest is awarded, the complainant is not entitled for compensation.    As such the points 1 & 2 are answered in favour of the complainant. 

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed.  The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.16,44,478/- (Rupees Sixteen  lakhs Forty four thousand four hundred and seventy eight only) along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 31.3.2013   to till the date of payment and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as litigation charges to the complainant within six weeks from the date of this order.

Dictated to the steno-typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this the 15^th    day of October   2015.

 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s side documents :

Ex.A1-       -        - Copy of Pass book.

Ex.A2- 19.7.2013   - Copy of letter from the Department of Post.

Ex.A3- 3.12.2013   - Copy of Advocate notice.

Ex.A4- 11.12.2013 – Copy of letter from India Post.

Ex.A5- 11.4.2014   - Copy of letter from India Post.

Ex.A6- 21.4.2014   - Copy of letter from the department of Posts

                             Intimation of the account details.

 

Ex.A7-       -      -  Copy of details of the deduction of accrued interest.

 

Opposite parties’ side  documents:

 

Ex.B1- 7.12.2010 - Copy of Notification.               

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.