BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM.
KAMRUP
C.C.No.120/2014
Present:
I) Shri A.F.A.Bora,M.Sc.,L.L.B.,A.J.S -President
II) Smti Archana Deka Lahkar,B.Sc.,L.L.B. -Member
III) Sri Jamatul Islam,B.Sc,Former Dy
Director, FCS & CA - Member
Shri Mahendra Kumar Doshi - Complainant
S/0 Late Mul Chand Doshi
Fancy Bazar, Guwahati-1,
District: Kamrup,(Metro) Assam
-vs-
I) Chief Post Master General of Post Offices, -Opposite party
Assam Circle , Meghdoot Bhawan,
G.P.O.Pan Bazar,
Guwahati-781001, Assam
II) Senior Post Master,
Meghdoot Bhawan,
G.P.O.Pan Bazar,
Guwahati-781001, Assam
Appearance
Learned advocate Mr.M.K.Jain, Mr.P.K.Bajaj, Mrs.S.Goel and Mr.P.Malu for the complainant .
Learned advocate Mr Chinmoy Kr Sarma Baruah for the opposite parties.
Date of argument:- 12.03.2020 & 17.06.2020
Date of judgment: -17.06.2020
JUDGMENT
1) This is an application u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complaint is regarding deficiency in service rendered by the opposite party, Chief Post Master General, Post Office, Assam Circle, Meghdoot Bhawan and Senior Post Master, Meghdoot Bhawan Guwahati. The complainant on 30.3.1994 opened a Public Provident Fund account vide P.P.F.Account No. 3468 in the name of Mahendra Kr.Doshi and Sons a Hindu Undivided Family herein- after called H.U.F. represented by the complainant as Karta and deposited Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) as initial subscription and thereafter regularly deposited some amount in the said account as per his wish.
2) It is submitted that after 15 (fifteen) years on maturity the complainant approached the postal authority for extension of said P.P.F. account for another 5 (five ) years and the extension was duly granted by the opposite party. Thereafter, the complainant deposited some amount in the P.P.F.Account on various dates as indicated in his complaint petition as shown below.
30.3.2009 | Rs.70,000.00 (Rupees seventy thousand) |
31.3.2010 | Rs.70,000.00 (Rupees seventy thousand) |
31.3.2011 | Rs.70,000.00 (Rupees seventy thousand) |
22.3.2012 | Rs.70,000.00 (Rupees seventy thousand) |
30.8.2012 | Rs.1,00,000.00 (Rupees one lakh). |
3) It is alleged further that on 2.9.13, the postal authority handed over a circular to the complainant stating that P.P.F.Account opened in the name of H.U.F. prior to 13.5.2005 have already been matured and not yet closed, shall be closed on 31st March 2011 and after that no interest shall be admissible. It is stated that on the following date opp.party No. 2 instead of issuing a cheque as per ledger account amounting to Rs.20,66,173.00 (Rupees twenty lakhs sixty six thousand one hundred seventy three)only issued an account payee cheque in the name of Mahendra Kumar Joshi and Sons (HUF) for Rs.17,64,910.00 (Rupees seventeen lakhs sixty four thousand nine hundred ten)only drawn on State Bank of India.
4) On receipt of the aforesaid cheque, the complainant protested the matter , but nobody entertained his verbal complaint . Thereafter on 6.9.13 complainant wrote a letter to the Head Post Master, G.P.O. , Guwahati demanding payment of accrued interest amounting to Rs.3,65,241/- (Rupees three lakhs sixty five thousand two hundred forty one)only, but opposite party No.2 on 16.9.13 denied their liability and intimating him that interest on such P.P.F. Account are not admissible beyond 31.3.2011 and referred copy of SB Order No.23 dtd.13.12.2012 together with a copy of Gazette Notification of 7.12.2010.
5) On being dissatisfied and aggrieved, the complainant approached the Senior Superintendent of Post Office vide his letter dtd. 26.9.13 and ultimately he received a written communication from the office of the Senior Superintendent of Post Office who have informed the same fact about inadmissibility of interest for the period as indicated earlier. The complainant further mentioned that post office had accepted Rs.70,000/- (Rupees seventy thousand )only on 22.3.12 and Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) only on 3.8.12 as subscription and also credited interest at the said account for the period upto 31.3.12 by Rs.1,31,242/- (Rupees one lakh thirty one thousand two hundred forty two) only and for the period upto 31.3.13 by Rs.1,64,421/- (Rupees one lakh sixty four thousand four hundred twenty one) only .
6) It is stated that acceptance for the aforesaid subscription after 31.3.2011 is in contravention with the rules in force applicable to the P.P.F.account by H.U.F. The allegation made by the complainant is that it is the duty of the post office to intimate the complainant about the closure of the P.P.F. Scheme for H.U.F. at the time of fresh deposit made by the complainant and the postal authority cannot be casual in their work and cannot assume that depositor shall come to know about all the amendments of his own. It is further mentioned in the complaint that opp.party accepted the deposits even having the knowledge about the closure of the scheme and also credited the interest in the ledger account of the complainant. Therefore the complainant is eligible for interest of the amount retained by the post office even after closure of P.P.F.Scheme for H.U.F. account .
7) On the above ground it is stated that there is deficiency in service rendered by the opp.party and complainant was unnecessarily harassed with mental agony for which he is entitled for compensation amounting to Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only under the above facts and circumstances the complainant made his claim:
a) Accrued interest Rs.3,65,241/-
b)Compensation for unnecessary
harassment and mental agony Rs. 50,000/
Rs. 4,15,241/
8) The opposite party appeared during the proceeding and contested the complaint by filing written statement stating inter alia that petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed and submits further that there is no cause of action for the complaint made against the answering opposite party. The fact of the case as mentioned in the written statement that claim petition is false and has been filed for illegal gain.
9) The opposite party submits that the P.P.F. Account No. 3468 was opened on 30.3.1994 at Guwahati G.P.O. by Mahandra Kumar Doshi and Sons which was matured on 30.3.2009 after completion of 15 years from the date of opening of the account.
10) The case of the opp.party is that as per SB Order No. 10/2014 dated 23.6.2005 only individuals can open PPF Account w.e.f.13.5.2005. In this connection a clarification was issued vide DO letter No. 113-10/2004 dtd. 5.9.2005 and again reiterated the same vide SB Order No. 20/2005 dtd. 14.11.2005 in which it was conveyed that the existing PPF account opened in the name of H.U.F.will continue till maturity. On scrutiny of the case as per opposite party it is seen that following excess deposits were made by the account holder after maturity of the PPF account made total excess deposit is Rs. 3,10,000/- (Rupees three lakhs ten thousand)only.
11) It is the case mentioned in the written statement by the opposite party that as per SB Order No.23/2010 dtd. 13.12.2010 for the PPF accounts which were opened in the name of HUF prior to 13.5.2005 but already been matured but not yet closed on 31.3.2011, after which no further interest will be admissible in the account. Accordingly , the PPF account was closed with the interest up to 31.3.2011 and the amount deposited during the financial years from 2009-10 to 2012-13 had been refunded to the depositor on closure of the account without interest.
The details of the amount paid on closure of the account by the opposite party as mentioned in the written statement is as below:
i) The balance at credit including the interest : Rs.12,47,351.00 as on 31.3.2009
ii) Interest for the year 2009-2010 (i.e. upto : Rs. 99,788.00
31.3.2010)
iii) Interest for the year 2010-11 : Rs. 1,07,771.00
iv) Refund of total Excess deposit shown in the : Rs.3,10,000.00
table above.
12) Accordingly the opposite party paid to the complainant vide Guwahati GPO cheque No. 241293dtd. 3.9.13. The complainant submitted an application on 26.9.13 for payment of interest on the excess paid amount. The opposite party informed that they are unable to pay the interest for excess amount as it would violated the order issued by the postal directorate. In this way the opposite party contested the proceeding denying the claim. It is further submitted that the complainant should not take chance of human error which had not occurred intentionally and submitted that the claim petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be rejected.
13) Issues for decisions and discussions:-
i) Whether the complainant is entitled for interest for the excess deposit made by him in PPF account at the office of the opp.party ?
ii) Whether the opp.party No. 1 & 2 are negligent in providing service to the complainant and thereby liable for payment etc.?
14) Reasons for decisions :
Both the issues are taken jointly for discussion. We have heard the argument put forward by both the parties. We have perused the record accordingly. The complainant has examined himself as C.W.1 and supported his complaint petition and testified Ex.2 the ledger account of his P.P.F account maintained by opp.party No. 2. We have carefully gone thorough the testimony of C.W.1 wherein it has been categorically mentioned that on maturity complainant approached the postal authority for extension of his P.P.F. account for another 5 years and extension was duly granted by the postal authority and thereafter, he deposited Rs.70,000/- on 31.3.2009, Rs.70,000/- on 31.3.2010, Rs.70,000/- on 31.3.2011, Rs.70,000/- on 22.3.2012 and another amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 30.8.2012. This fact has been found corroborated by the documents which is termed as Ex.2 the ledger account of the PPF . Opp.party in his cross examination failed to assail the confident version of the C.W.1 and mere suggestion that this facts are not correct, is not sufficient to hold a view otherwise.
15) The opp.party being the authority of a responsible department allowed the complainant to deposit such an amount for a long period of time without raising any objection or referring the department order No. 10/2014 dtd. 23.6.2005 during the payment made by the complainant.
16) Apparently it is a deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party who is dealing with public money with responsibility. The evidence of the complainant is clear enough in respect of the deposits made by him in his PPF account No. 3468. The letter issued to the opp.party bythe complainant vide Ex.3 has indicated the entire fact and demand made by the complainant in respect to his PPF account. The another document Ex. 4 is the letter issued by the opposite party which shows that SB order No. 23 dtd. 13.12.2010 along with a Gazzate Notification dt.7.12.2010 was supplied to the complainant with accrued interest in respect of his PPF account. Ex. 5 is another letter issued by the complainant to the authority concerned and Ex.6 is a reply from the opposite party which indicates that Postal Directorate issued an order dtd. 14.11.2005 that the accounts ( H.U.F.) opened after 13.5.2005 will continue till maturity, but no extension would be granted . It is further mentioned that the account under reference was opened on 30.3.94 and as per SB order No. 23/2010, the P.P.F.accounts which were opened before 13.5.2005 have already been matured, but not closed, shall be closed on 31.3.2011 and no further interest is admissible vide SB order No. 23/2010 . It has been further mentioned that post office has given the payment correctly as per rule, and no interest can be given for the excess deposit. The account had excess deposit of 19 months.
17) The evidence adduced by the O.P.W. 2 Sri Tridip Goswami on behalf of the opp.pary is regarding some documents which are discussed one by one. Ex. I is the authority letter dated 27.6.2017 issued by the Sr.Post Master , G.P.O. Ex.II is a circular regarding closing of PPF(H.U.F.) accounts on maturity- an amendment to paragraph (9) of PPF Scheme,1986.The documents mentioned above indicate clearly that PPF account opened in the name of H.U.F prior to 13.5.2005 cannot be further extended after maturity and no further deposit can be accepted in such account after maturity.
18) But in our present case in hand the acceptance of further deposits by the opp.party itself is contrary to Government circular testified by the opp.party as Ex.II (Annexure 4) . Ex.III is a reply letter issued by the opp.party to the complainant wherein it has been mentioned that the excess deposit accepted through oversight and same is adjusted accordingly. Ex.IV is another letter which clearly shows that the amount of Rs.3,10,000/- has been made as an excess deposit by the complainant .
19) Hence, the case in our hand is very clear that inspite of existing circular the opp.party have failed to provide their service to the complainant by accepting the excess deposits . The negligence on the part of the opp.party is established and the complainant being a consumer ought to have been informed properly at the initial stage i.e. after closing of the scheme or before accepting the further deposits. The act of the opposite party have caused irreparable loss as well as sufferings to the complainant as he deposited excess amount in his P.P.F.account with a permission for 5 years .
20) From the foregoing discussion it is apparent that there is a negligence on the part of the opposite party in accepting the so-called extended PPF scheme . The complainant admittedly deposited the said amount as discussed in the forgoing para beyond the period of maturity. As such issue no. I is decided in affirmative because of the fact that the opp.party accepted the same without objection. Moreover the opposite party ought have refused further payment and communicated the concerned government order to their consumer so that they will act accordingly.
21) We have considered the written argument put forward by the ld. counsel of the opp. party who had submitted total amount arrived after calculation in respect of PPF account was Rs. 17,64,910/- only which was paid by GPO Cheque as already discussed . The argument put forwarded by opp. party on the fact that opp. party is unable to pay further amount since it was intimated to the complainant about closure of the account. The learned counsel referred the official notification which we have already discussed in the previous para. We have also considered the written argument of the complainant available on record.
22) On careful perusal of cross examination of O.P.No-1 Sri Tridip Goswami by the complainant reveals that Ext-2 is the statement and as per that statement last deposit was made on 03/08/2012 and the amount was Rs. 1,00,000/-. The Ext-2 indicates that last balance as on 31/03/2013 was Rs.20,66,173/- which includes accrued interest amounting to Rs. 1,64,421/- . Admittedly , Ext-2 was received from the office of the opp. party. It is further admitted by opp. party no-1 that they have not given interest after 31/03/2011 . This fact has been clearly contradicted the admitted fact about the copy of the Ledger Account No- 3468 which was issued by the opp. party. It shows that the losing amount with interest on 31/03/2013 was Rs.20,66,173/- . This amount is shown in the ledger copy of the PPF account & is contradictory to the statement of OPW-1 as discussed above.
23) Our opinion to the above fact is that if there is a ledger account supplied to the complainant goes upto Rs. 20,66,173/- as per Ext-2 then how they can make deduction out of it by making a payment less than that calculating it at the amount of Rs.17,64,910/- which is not properly explained by the opp. party. If we consider the admitted fact about payment made by the opp. party to the tune of Rs.17,64,910/- which was received by the complainant on 03/09/2013 then the balance amount will be Rs.3,01,263/- payable to the complainant.
24) In the result, issue No-2 taken for consideration is decided in favour of the complainant and opp. party is liable to make the payment of the total amount as shown in the ledger account. The unpaid amount of Rs.3,01,263/- is payable to the complainant by the opp. party.
ORDER
It is directed that opp.parties will pay an amount of Rs.3,01,263/-(Rupees three lakhs one thousand two hundred sixty three) only with an interest @4% from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. The opp. party is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand) only for mental agony and harassment and another amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand ) only as cost of the proceedings. The opp.parties will pay the amount within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the judgment, failing which, they will have to pay an interest @9% per annum from the date of judgment till realization.
Given under our hand and seal of the District Forum, Kamrup, this the 17th day of June , 2020.
(Md J.Islam) (Smt A.D.Lahkar) (Sri A.F.A Bora)
Member Member President
