KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL 593/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 25.9.2010 PRESENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER 1. The post Master, West Hill.P.O., : APPELLANTS Calicut – 673005. 2. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Calicut Division, Calicut 673003. 3. Postmaster General, Northern Region, Calicut -673011. (By Mr.R.P.Sandeep, authorized representative) Vs. 1. C.Sekharan, : RESPONDENTS C/o Ramankutty Vaidyar, Prabhija Nivas, Puzhavakkath, Eranhikkal, Elathur, Calicut. 2. Smt.Thankam.P., W/o Sekharan, -do-do- JUDGMENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in CC.450/06 in the file of CDRF, Kozhikode. The appellants are under orders to provide bonus of Rs.40000/- to the complainant. 2. It is the case of the complainants/husband and wife that they deposited a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- each in their names vide two cheques dated 10.2.2006 drawn SBI, Pavangad branch. Subsequently in the pass book it is seen mentioned that the complainants are not entitled for bonus which is against the stipulation in the brochure. Complainant has sought for a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards damages and compensation. 3. It is the contention of the opposite parties/appellants that the cheques were sent to the Calicut head post office for clearance. It is presented for clearance on 13.2.06. MIS accounts were opened on 14.2.2006. As per the Savings Bank Rules the deposits are treated as having commenced only on encashment of the cheque. As per the gazette notification dated 10.2.2006 of the Ministry of Finance, Govt.of India the Rules have been amended and it is provided that no bonus shall be paid on deposits which opened on or after 13.2.06. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, it is contended. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1; Exts.A1 to A10 and Exts.B1 and B2. 5. The Forum has noted that the cheques were handed over on 10.2.2006 and it is on account of the procedural delay on the part of the opposite parties that the cheques were presented only on 13.2.2006. According to the Forum the subsequent notification issued by the Ministry of Finance is not binding on the complainant; and hence directed the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.40000/- towards bonus as promised. 6. It is the case of the complainant/PW1 that he was assured by the opposite parties that he will be getting bonus of 10% on maturity. The appellants case is that with respect to the accounts opened after presentation of cheques the date of opening the account will be the date of encashment. True, it is mentioned in the Post Office Savings Bank General Rules ie Ext.B1 vide rule 5(3) and note 2 that in case of presentation of cheques the date of credit in the account would be the date of commencement and not the date of its presentation. Ext.B2 notification dated 10.2.2006 as already noted accounts started on or after 13.2.2006 the depositor would not be entitled for bonus. Of course the Forum cannot direct to give bonus as against statutory provision. All the same we find that there is clear deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite parties ought to have informed the complainants as to the notification and also as to the delay likely to be caused for encashing the cheque and that only on encashment the account would be treated as opened. The opposite parties/appellants also could have directed the complainant to deposit the amount in cash. In the circumstances we find that there is clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the order of the Forum is modified. The opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.12500/- each as compensation to the complainant on the maturity of the accounts apart from interest as per the scheme. 7. The appeal is allowed in part as above. Office will forward the LCR along with the copy of this order to the Forum urgently. JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER ps | 
