Delhi

East Delhi

CC/279/2018

VIKAS GOEL - Complainant(s)

Versus

CHIEF POST MASTER - Opp.Party(s)

25 Feb 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO.  279/2018

 

	Vikas Goel (Karta Vikas Goel, HUF) R/o 31 Shanti Vihar, Near Karkardooma DDA Flats, Delhi - 110092	….Complainant
Versus
1	The Chief Post Master Krishna Nagar Main Post Office Delhi 110051	……OP1

 

                                                         

 

Date of Institution: 28.08.2018

Judgment Reserved on: 14.02.2022

Judgment Passed on: 25.02.2022

                  

QUORUM:

Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Ms. Ritu Garodia (Member)

Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

 

Order By: Shri S.S. Malhotra, President

 

JUDGEMENT

1. Complaint pertains to deficiency in service on the part of OP by not granting the interest on his PPF A/c for three years. Brief facts as stated in the complaint are that complainant had one PPF account no. 0889529366 in the name of Vikas Goel (HUF) at Head Post Office, Krishna Nagar. When on 11.01.2018 he tried to deposit an amount of Rs. 50,000/-  he was informed that no further amount can be deposited in his account as new policy/guidelines have come according to which he had to withdraw his amount and close his current PPF account and accordingly, he moved an application to Post Master at Post office, Krishna Nagar on 12.01.2018 and the OP had to return him an amount of Rs. 10,59,650/- as per his  passbook but instead of the same the post office returned him only Rs. 9,26,428/-. Further it is submitted that on 01.04.2017 his PPF account was showing a balance amount of Rs.  10,59,650/-. He further averred that on 02.12.2015 he deposited Rs. 1,00,000/- and got an interest of Rs. 61,749/- from 1.4.2015 to 31.03.2016 which was duly reflected in his passbook which was also not given to him. He also deposited an amount of Rs 1,00,000/- on 28.11.2016 and Rs. 50,000/- on 05.12.2016 and his passbook showed credit entry of interest from 1.4.2016 to 31.3.2017 for an amount of Rs. 71,473/- and the same was also not given. An amount of Rs. 68,200/- for the period from 01.04.2017 to 11.01.2018 as interest has also not been given to him. Application to that effect was given to Krishana Nagar Post office but of no consequence. It is further stated that he demanded certain information under RTI, but of no consequence nor the desired information was given. He further submitted that post office has utilized his amount and despite that, interest has not been given and therefore, it is prayed that an amount to the extent of Rs. 2,01,422/- which has accrued to him as interest be ordered to be returned to him alongwith compensation of Rs. 40,000/-.
2. The OP was duly served and has filed his reply, taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable as complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands and has concealed material facts, has filed the complaint with intentions to get exorbitant gain, hence, it is a gross abuse of the process of law, and the complaint is not maintainable as it is a well settled preposition of law that law does not come to rescue a person who sleeps on his own matter. Complainant knew the provision that further extension of PPF account is not permissible after maturity or after 15 years as per SB Order No. 23/2010 dated 13.12.2010 and furthermore, account opened in the name of HUF prior to 13.5.2005 cannot be further extended after maturity and no further amount can be deposited. It is further submitted that the amount deposited by the complainant after maturity, was not proper and it was specifically told to the complainant that after maturity no such amount can be deposited. The complainant opened an PPF account on 07.04.1999 which was running smoothly, upto the period of maturity but thereafter, he intentionally deposited the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 02.12.2015 and Rs. 1,00,000/- on 28.11.2016 and Rs. 50,000/- on 05.12.2016 and at that point of time he was told not to deposit the amount as his account stands matured and therefore, no interest was calculated after 01.04.2016 as per SB Order No. 23/2010. It is further stated that the complainant has filed an application to close his PPF account, on 23.01.2018, and payment of due amount of Rs. 9,26,428/- was made to him. On merit it is stated that as per SB order No. 23/2010 it is clear that PPF account opened in the name of HUF prior to 13.12.2005 will be closed on maturity i.e. 31.03.2016, in the financial year from the year in which the account was opened and no interest will be admissible, and as such admissible interest has already been paid. As far as the remarks, “Extended for Five Years” was given by post office staff or not, is not clear since there is no post office stamp against the said remarks.  The deposit of the complainant was erroneously accepted by the post office but the amount has been returned to complainant alongwith its maturity value. As far filing the application or appeal is concerned, it is stated that decision was given by CIC on 20.08.2018, and therefore, complainant is not entitled to get any benefit.
3. Complainant then filed the rejoinder. Both parties also have filed evidence by way of affidavit in terms of their pleadings.
4. I have heard the aguements and perused the record.  The contentions of the complainant  who is contesting the matter in person is that he was maintaining PPF (HUF) Account, he kept on depositing the same and post office used to accept his deposit even after the expiry of 15 years, he was never informed or conveyed in the year 2015 that he cannot deposit further amount in PPF account and not only that, the amount so taken by the Post Office, was being duly reflected in his passbook and even interest was also being credited in his account for the amount deposited on 28.11.2016 and likewise on other dates, and once the complainant has only one document in his possession i.e. the passbook and it shows that his deposit has been acknowledged by the Post Office and his deposited amount, also carries the interest, he cannot, by way of any imagination presume that the amount whatever has been deposited by him would not bear the interest or amount has been taken by the Post office under some mistake. He has further argued that even the circular so being relied upon by the OP has not been supplied to him during all the proceedings and even the same has not been filed on court record and as such he was under the bonafide belief that he had been depositing the amount as per the norms and no negligency can be attributed on his part.
5. Ld. Counsel for OP on the other hand has argued that the amount was being deposited by the complainant with oblique intentions to get an exorbitant gain and the complainant who was sleeping over his rights cannot be allowed to be benefitted for his own mistakes. The maturity period of PPF (HUF) account was 15 years as per the instructions vide SB Order No. 23/2010 and in no case it can be extended after maturity and further deposit could not have been accepted and this facts was concealed by the complainant despite having been specifically told, that the amount cannot be deposited in his account.
6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by both the parties and the contention of Ld. Counsel for OP cannot be accepted for various reasons. Firstly, the complainant has a passbook issued by the OP, that passbook bears the entry of having the amount being deposited and also of the fact that the deposited amount bears an interest. Even if, the complainant had some malafide intention to deposit the amount in PPF Post Office account on 02.12.2015, it was the bounden duty of the Post Office officials not to accept the amount  as it has done in the year 2018, and if there would have been any circular as is being claimed by the OP, that must have been uploaded on the computer network of the OP so that even if the amount is trying to be deposited, it be not accepted and if accepted negligently or erroneously, it could have been reflected immediately. If this precaution would have been taken by OP, then the moment the amount would have been deposited by complainant it would have been reflected in the details of the PPF account and there would have been an objection w.r.t. any deposit either on the same day or after some days. This fact has not been explained by the OP as to why there was no denial of having received the amount, nor there is any communication to the complainant that his amount has been taken erroneously by the clerk and it continued for almost two years. Not only this, this amount so deposited also bears entry of interests so credited. If, there would have been any circular, the PPF account or the Post Office would have and should have declined the payment of interest at that time or at any time thereafter. The PPF department would not have calculated the interest nor it could have updated and credited the interest in their record, nor it would got have been reflected in the pass book of complainant. This inter-alia gives an outlook that even if there is mistake on the part of concerned clerk sitting on depositing counter of the post office, this mistake should have been caught by PPF department officials, who took the deposit in PPF account and even gave interest after a detailed calculations of each penny. Therefore, the contention that there is mistake on the part of Post Office cannot be appreciated. It is not a mere mistake of Post Office clerk but it is also a mistake of computing system of post office as well as computing system of PPF (HUF) system officials. It also gives an impression that alleged circular is not updated in the record of OP or PPF authorities. And if, everyone in the deptt of post office and PPF account is at fault then such mistake cannot be imputed to the complainant. It further shows that such circular, if any exists, has not been uploaded by the post office or by the PPF officials in their system/machine/computer, therefore, it is not the complainant but the OP who were sleeping w.r.t. their duties. 
7. Further, if there is a mistake of particular clerk, who was that particular clerk sitting on the seat, has not been identified by Post office, nor has been examined so as to depose on oath, that he specifically informed the complainant in 2015 that his amount cannot be taken as deposit. No such person has been named, examined and disclosed. Therefore, this contention of the OP is also too vague to be considered and It only can be termed as an afterthought.
8. Further, and quite surprisingly, the OP has not placed on record the particular circular no. SB order No. 23/2010, on the basis of which the OP is building up his defence and is contending that the interest cannot be granted to complainant due to that circular. Non placing of that particular document/circular itself prove that the negligent if it, at all can be attributed, is on the part of OP and OP alone. Without filing that particular circular, for the examination of the court, the contention of the OP cannot be appreciated.
9. Further, what legal value of that circular has, if it at all exist, is also, not been explained. Definitely that circular can not be termed as a `Law’ of which a person is supposed to have a judicial notice. That, circular, if it at all exists, at the most it is a internal circular supposedly issued by  the authorities for the guidelines of their staff and that circular has to be uploaded on website for general information and in the system of OPs and unless told to complainant, it cannot bind the complainant. In any case circular cannot be equated with law of land of which everyone is supposed have judicial notice.
10. Further, the Commission has also observed, certain informations as are printed on the cover page of passbook, where some guidelines have been given for the depositor. Those guidelines, nowhere states that this particular PPF (HUF) account is for a period of 15 years and would mature on particular date and there cannot be any extension.
11. The contractual obligation is in between the complainant and OP that too by way of a psssbook issued by the OP and it certifies his deposit. As per the record of the OP from time to time and those deposits entries done by OP without havng any control of complainant and as such no knowledge of such a circular can be imputed upon the complainant.
12. In view of the appreciation of above facts, it cannot be said at all that the complainant was sleeping over his rights as alleged rather it appears that it is the OP who has not been imparting proper instructions to their employees and had been sleeping on their own circulars for years together negligently or intentionally.
13. The contention that complainant knew about the provision that further extension of his PPF account, has also not been proved and correlated with any positive evidence by the OP and the affidavit of evidence so filed by the OP is too general to be relied upon as no document has been exhibited therein and in absence of any document it only became a hearsay.
14. Further, the deposit of amount by complainant on 02.12.2015,. 28.11.2016 and on 05.12.202016 has not been denied at all and not only there is no denial, the passbook entries does show that a certain interest has been accrued on the same and that interest has been calculated by the concerned authority of PPF account, and if, there is no mention/recording of such circular in the computer system of such authority, it is difficult to believe that complainant would be having or supposed to have such information. It cannot be persumed that if the clerk of Post Office has taken some amount of deposit erroneously, then that mistake would be repeated by all and would not be caught by PPF officials, who accepted that deposit, or by the clerk who computed the interest in PPF A/c and reverted back to the Post Office and then by the clerk of post office, who made an entry in the passbook and if there is mistake of all such officers/officials of post office or PPF officers/officials, the complainant cannot be blamed.
15. Keeping in view all the facts as explained here in above Commission is of the opinion that the complainant has been able to prove that there is deficiency in service by the OP and the OP has not been able to prove that such a deposit was erroneously accepted in the post office in complaint’s account
16. The Commission, therefore, allowed the complaint and order as follows-

1. That the OP would refund an amount of Rs. 2,01,422/- to the complainant alongwith interest @8.5% from the date 12.01.2018.
2. That the OP would pay an consolidated amount of Rs. 25,000/- towards mental pain, harassment, discomfort and legal expenses to the complainant.

17. This order be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order.
18. Copy of the order be supplied/sent to the parties free of cost as per rules.
19. File be consigned to Record Room.
20. Announced on 25.02.2022

Delhi.

 

 

(Ravi Kumar) Member

(Ritu Garodia) Member

(S.S. Malhotra) President