Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/26/2021

1. The Senior Post Master, T. Nagar Head Post Office, Chennai 600 017. And Another - Complainant(s)

Versus

C.R. kulasekaran, Son of Late C. Ranganatham, First Floor, New No.23, Old No.12, Tanjore Road, T. Na - Opp.Party(s)

M/s. S. Chandrasekaran

28 Oct 2022

ORDER

IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

            BEFORE :       Hon’ble Thiru Justice R. SUBBIAH         PRESIDENT

                         Thiru R  VENKATESAPERUMAL             MEMBER

                        

F.A.NO.26/2021

(Against order in CC.NO.196/2018 on the file of the DCDRC, Chennai (South)

 

      DATED THIS THE 28^th DAY OF OCTOBER 2022      

 

1.       The Senior Post Master

T. Nagar Head Post Office

Chennai – 600 017

 

2.       The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices

Chennai City Central Division                                    M/s.S. Chandrasekaran

Third Floor, T Nagar Head Post Office                              Counsel for

T. Nagar, Chennai – 600 017                                            Appellants /Opposite parties

                                                         Vs.

 

C.R.Kulasekaran

S/o. Late C.Ranganatham

First Floor, New No.23, Old No.12                                          M/s. K. Ganesan

Tanjore Road, T.Nagar,                                                             Counsel for

Chennai – 600 017                                                          Respondent/ Complainant

 

          The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite parties praying for certain direction. The District Commission had allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the Opposite parties praying to set aside the order of the District Commission dt.27.12.2019 in CC.No.196/2018.

 

          This appeal coming before us for hearing finally 10.8.2022, upon hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing for bothsides and on perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Commission, this commission made the following order:

 

ORDER

JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH,  PRESIDENT   

 

1.       This appeal has been filed by the appellants/opposite parties, as against the order of the District Commission, Chennai (South), dt.27.12.2019 in CC.No.196/2018 by allowing the complaint, filed by the complainant herein.

 

2.       For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred as per the ranking before the District Commission.

 

3.       The case of the complainant in brief is as follows:

           The complainant opened a senior citizen savings scheme account   No.0000936835 on 10.9.2009 at Pondichery Post Office for Rs.15,00,000/-.  Subsequently the said account was transferred to T.Nagar Head Post Office on 19.6.2010.  The periodical interests were credited into the Savings Bank Account of the complainant, since then.  Under the said scheme, the account would mature at the end of 5 years, from the date of opening of the account, with an option to extend the account for further period of three years, by making an application in Form B to the deposited post office, within a period of one year after the maturity period of five years.  Accordingly, the account was extended for a further period of 3 years on 12.6.2015.  With this extension the account was due to mature on 12.9.2017.  On completion of the extension period, the 1^st opposite party had failed to pay the maturity proceeds of the account in full and deducted a sum of Rs.546382/-, on account of alleged excess interest paid.   The complainant was paid a sum of Rs.962993/-  (inclusive of TDS refund) only on 6.11.2017, as against the total maturity value of Rs.15,00,000/-, which was accepted by the complainant under protest.  This act of the opposite party had caused enormous mental agony to the complainant.   The 1^st opposite party made the complainant to run from pillar to post at this advanced age to decipher the reasons behind the denial of payment of maturity proceeds on the Senior Citizens Savings Scheme Account standing in the name of the complainant. The complainant also had given a written complaint on 10.10.2017 and email dt.17.10.2017.  After a considerable delay, and frequent follow-ups, the opposite party had issued a letter dt.3.11.2017 stating that the Senior Citizens Savings Scheme Account No.0000936835 was opened irregularly without mentioning the earlier accounts standing in the name of the complainant, and as a result, a sum amounting to Rs.1085046/- would be deducted on account of excess interest paid on the account.  The calculations appended with the letter further stated that an amount of Rs.962993/- would be repaid out of the total deposit of Rs.15 lakhs.  This unscrupulous act of the 1^st opposite party had caused great hardship and mental agony to the complainant.  Aggrieved by the act of the 1^st opposite party the complainant made an appeal to the 2^nd opposite party on 29.11.2017, but said appeal was rejected by the 2^nd opposite party without considering the points raised by the complainant in a cursory manner and closed the appeal without appreciating the merits of the case.  Hence he filed a complaint before the District Commission, praying for refund of the amount of Rs.534860/- alongwith 9% interest, and compensation of Rs.5 lakhs and cost. 

4.       The case of the complainant was resisted by the opposite parties as follows:

          The complainant had opened Senior Citizens Savings Scheme Account No.0000936835 at Pondichery Head Office for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/-, and the said account was transferred to T.Nagar Head Post Office on 19.6.2010 at the request of the complainant.  While opening the account, form SB-3 alongwith the Pass Book was received at T.Nagar Head Post Office for effecting transfer, and at that time it was verified and found that the petitioner had given the self declaration at the time of opening of account at Pondichery Head Office that he had no SCSS account at any other post office in India.  But it is seen that he had opened the following three SCSS accounts viz.

Account No.	Amount     Rs.	Date of opening	Date of closing	Amount paid    Rs.	Deduction         Rs.
101011	5,00,000	20.09.2004	03.10.2009	5,00,000	Nil
102938	10,00,000	24.11.2004	24.11.2009	10,00,000	Nil
0000936835	15,00,000	10.09.2009	06.11.2017	9,62,993	10,85,046

 

          Thus the amount deposited by the complainant in SCSS scheme had exceeded the maximum limit of Rs.15 lakhs.  While opening the third account at Pondichery HPO, he had given false declaration in the account opening form that he had no other SCSS account.  If the complainant had revealed about the existing deposits, the department would have guided him to withdraw the excess deposit at that time itself.  The excess deposit came to be noticed only when the complainant applied for duplicate pass book at T.Nagar Head Post Office, and he was informed to close the account.  However, on coming to know the above violation of crossing ceiling limit prescribed under the rules, the excess interest amount paid @ Rs.10,85,046/- in total from the date of opening i.e, 10.9.2009 was recovered as deductions in the account No.0000936835.  Hence there is no negligence on the part of the opposite parties.  It is the complainant, who had given the self-declaration with ulterior motive. The SCSS rules 2004 framed by the Government of India is applicable to deposits opened by an individual under the scheme throughout India and not at a particular post office.  The complainant as a depositor was asked to close the account as soon as the irregularity came to notice.  The deduction of interest was made in accordance with the Rules under the Scheme SCSS 2004.  Therefore there is no negligence or unfair trade practice as alleged by the complainant.  Thus they sought for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

5.       In order to prove the respective case of the parties proof affidavits were filed on either side alongwith documents which were marked as Ex.A1 to A15 on the side of the complainant and Ex.B1 to B3 on the side of the opposite parties. 

 

6.       After analysing the evidence on record, the District Commission had come to the conclusion that when two SCSS deposits are pending, the opposite party permitted the complainant to open the third account, knowing fully well that the complainant is not entitled to make the third deposit.  Eventhough the rules are framed to make liability on the complainant, it is the duty of the opposite party to ascertain whether the complainant had deposited as per rules.  Thus holding that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, had allowed the complaint, by directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.534860/- alongwith interest @9% p.a., and to pay Rs.50000/- towards compensation for mental agony and cost of Rs.10000/-.  Aggrieved over the order impugned, the opposite parties have filed this appeal, praying to set aside the impugned order.

 

7.        The learned counsel for the appellants/ opposite parties would submit before this commission that the Respondent had not furnished any details about the previous deposits at the Post Offices and stated as ‘nil’ in the column 2(iii) of application for opening an Account under Senior Citizens Savings Scheme.  While so, before the maturity of the SCSS account No.0000936835, the Respondent/ complainant had approached T.Nagar Head Office for issue of duplicate pass book vide application dt.4.9.2017.  When the request was verified through Saving Bank Control Organisation, T.Nagar Head Office, it was found that the account number mentioned in the request was already closed.  Therefore, the Respondent/ complainant was asked to render the correct account number.  On furnishing the revised application for issue of duplicate pass book for SCSS account opened at Pondichery HO viz. A/c No.0000936835 for Rs.15,00,000/- by the complainant, it came to light that the complainant had already held two SCSS account at T.Nagar Head Post Office bearing No.101011 for Rs.5 lakhs on 21.9.2004 and A/c.No.102938 for Rs.10,00,000/- on 13.4.2005 totalling Rs.15,00,000/-, which is the maximum prescribed limit as per Rule (4)(1) of Gazettee Notification issued by Ministry of Finance dt.2.8.2004 for SCSS Rules 2004.  During the period 2009, the Post Offices of India were having only local data base (Sanchay Post) and there was no provisions for the post offices to check whether the depositors have anyother deposits in SCSS scheme.  Thus the details with regard to the SCSS deposits the complainant had at T.Nagar HPO could not be found while opening the account at Pondichery, moreover the Respondent had not declared about his other SCSS deposits in the declaration form.  The learned counsel for the appellant also had drawn the attention of this commission to the Post Office Saving Manual Volume 1 Chapter 7 of SCSS account Rules 2004.  Thus submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the appellants/ opposite parties, and sought for dismissal of the order impugned.   

 

8.       Countering the submissions the learned counsel for the Respondent/ complainant by justifying the order passed by the District Commission, would submit that the deposit in A/c. No.000036835 was within the prescribed limit of Rs.15,00,000/- for a period between 24.11.2009 and 6.11.2017.  The interest on deposit made over and above the prescribed limit of Rs.15,00,000/- had been made only for a brief period of 51 days in case of account No.101011 and 75 days in case of A/c.No.102938.  The deduction of excess interest if any is only for the period wherein the amount deposited is over and above the prescribed limit and not for the entire term of deposit.  The total deposit invested in the name of Respondent/ Complainant was brought well within the ceiling limit of Rs.15,00,000/- as early as on 24.11.2009 and thereafter the account was regular for about 8 years. 

          The learned counsel has also drawn the attention of this commission to a judgement of the Hon’ble National Commission held in Chief Post Master General & 2 others Vs. AsudibenshitaldasIsrani, reported in 2015 SCC online NCDRC 2014” wherein it has been held that when the amount of deposit was held in the coffers of the Appellants/ opposite parties, the applicable interest has to be paid to the Respondent/ Complainant. 

          For the similar proposition, the counsel for the Respondent/ complainant has also relied upon the judgement of the Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.2411 of 2006 dt.13.10.2010, in the case of Union Of India and others Vs. M.L.Bora, Registrar & Constituted Attorney of Century.

           Thus prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 

 

9.       Keeping the submissions in mind, we have carefully gone through the entire materials available on record.

 

10.     The main submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the complainant had opened a SCSS account at Pondichery Head Post Office on 10.9.2009 for Rs.15,00,000/-.  Under the SCSS scheme, the maximum limit of deposit would be Rs.1500000/- only.  Whereas the complainant initially had made two SCSS deposits in the year 2004 and 2005 for a sum of Rs.5 lakhs and Rs.10 lakhs respectively.  Therefore, while closing the SCSS account No. No.0000936835 opened at Pondichery Head Post Office, and while transferring the same to T.Nagar Head Post Office, on 6.11.2017, as per Sub Rule 7 of Rule (7) of Gazette notifications issued by the Ministry of Finance dt.2.8.2004 for SCSS account Rules 2004, by deducting the excess interest already paid to the complainant in the previous SCSS deposits @ Rs.5,34,860/-, the balance amount of Rs.962993/- has been paid. 

          The Appellant would further submit that the complainant had suppressed the details about the earlier deposits while submitting the declaration form in the Pondichery Head Post Office.  As per Post Office Saving Manual Volume 1 Chapter 7 of Senior Citizens Savings Scheme Account Rules 2004, and as per sub rule (7) of Rule (7) of Gazette Notification issued by Ministry of Finance for SCSS Rules 2004 “A deposit shall as soon it comes to its notice that a deposit exceeds the ceiling prescribed in the Rule (i.e.) Rs.15,00,000/-.  The amount deposited in the account in excess of the prescribed limit will be refunded with interest at the rate applicable to Savings Account from the date of deposit to the end of the month preceding the month in which the deposit office issues request to the deposit to withdraw the excess amount.  The senior citizen interest paid if any on the excess amount will be adjusted from the amount payable”. 

          In view of the above, the entire deposit made in SCSS A/c.No.0000936835 is to be treated as excess deposit which has to be refunded to depositor with interest at the rate applicable to Savings Bank Account on adjusting the Senior Citizen Interest already paid. 

 

11.     In view of the above, our attention was drawn to the Senior Citizens Savings Rules 2004 as seen from Ex.A14 as follows:

4.         Deposits and withdrawals :-

(1)       There shall be only one deposit in the account in multiple of one thousand rupees not exceeding rupees fifteen lakh:

 

Provided that deposits by depositors under sub-rule (ii) of rule 2, shall be restricted to the retirement benefits received by them or rupees fifteen lakh, whichever is lower.

 

Explanation:- For the purposes of this sub-rule, “retirement benefits” means any payment due to the depositor on account of retirement whether on superannuation or otherwise and includes Provident Fund dues, retirement/superannuation gratuity, commuted value of pension, cash equivalent of leave, savings element of Group Savings linked Insurance Scheme payable by employer to the employee on retirement, retirement-cum-withdrawal benefit under the Employees’ Family Pension Scheme and ex-gratia payments under a voluntary retirement or a special voluntary retirement scheme.’.

 

(2) Except as provided in rule 9, no withdrawal shall be permitted under these rules before the expiry of a period of five years from the date of opening of an account.

 

(3) The depositor may extend the account for a further period of three years by making an application in FORM-B to the deposit office within a period of one year after the maturity period of five years as specified in sub-rule (2).

 Explanation.- Extension of account under this sub-rule shall be deemed to have been made from the date of maturity irrespective of the date of application.

 

(4) A deposit office shall, as soon as it comes to the notice that a deposit exceeds the ceiling prescribed under sub-rule (1), request the depositor in writing, to withdraw the excess deposit immediately

           

In this connection, a perusal of Ex.A8 dt.31.10.2017, letter sent by the appellants/ opposite parties to the Respondent/ complainant would show that the appellants/ opposite parties have intimated about the excess interest paid towards the SCSS account, and prevailing rules for the maximum limit of Rs.1500000/- for the SCSS account as well as the details of the interest paid in excess.  The working sheet under Ex.A8 would clearly establish the breakup details of the excess interest paid and the amount to be paid after deducting the excess interest.  As per the rules the appellants / opposite parties have refunded the deposit amount with regard to A/c.No.0000936835 alongwith interest applicable to Savings Bank account, after deducting the excess interest amount paid as per SCSS deposit.  Therefore, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in respect of deducting the excess interest of Rs.534860/- paid to the complainant towards the earlier SCSS deposits.

  A careful perusal of the judgements cited by the learned counsel for the Respondent/ complainant would show that the facts involved in those cases are different from that of the facts involved in this complaint.  In the judgements cited by the learned counsel for the Respondent/ complainant, the crux of the issue are pertaining to the mistake committed by the complainant in furnishing the details of the co-depositors while opening the SCSS deposit , and another judgement was with regard to the loss of article in transit. 

          Whereas in the case on our hand, the main issue is with regard to the excess deposit made by suppressing the details about the deposits already made in SCSS account. 

 

 Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in deducting the excess amount paid towards interest in Senior Citizen Savings Scheme.   In view of the above findings, the order of the District Commission deserves to be set aside, accordingly setaside. 

 

12.     In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the District Commission, Chennai (South) in CC.No.196/2018 dt.27.12.2019 and the complaint is hereby dismissed.  There is no order as to cost throughout.

          Registry is directed to discharge the mandatory deposit alongwith accrued interest in favour of the appellants/ opposite parties. 

         

 

 

          R  VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                R. SUBBIAH

                    MEMBER                                                                      PRESIDENT