Before  the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission [Central], 5th Floor                                         ISBT Building, Kashmere Gate, Delhi

                               Complaint Case No. 200/2018

S. C Kapoor

resi. of D 322, Vasant Apartment,

Delhi Road, Gurgaon-122001                                                  … Complainant

                             Versus

OP1. The Chief Post Master General,  

Department of Post,  Government  of India,

 Delhi Postal Circle,  Meghdoot Bhawan Link Road,

Jhandewalan,  New Delhi-110001                                  ... Opposite Party No. 1

OP2. The Post Master,  Department of Posts,

 Government  of India, Delhi GPO, Delhi-110006                   ... Opposite Party No. 2

[with headquarter at Sl. No. 1 above]

OP3. The Post Master Department of Post,

Government  of India , New Delhi GPO,

New Delhi-110001.                                                        ... Opposite Party No. 3

[with headquarter at Sl. No. 1 above].

OP4. ADM (PLI), Delhi Postal Circle,

 Meghdoodh Bhawan, New dehi-110001                       ...Opposite Party  No.4

[with headquarter at SI. No. 1 above]

                                                                   Date of filing:               25.10.2018

                                                                   Date of Order:              01.06.2023

Coram: Shri Inder Jeet Singh, President

              Ms. Shahina, Member -Female

              Shri Vyas Muni Rai,    Member

Inder Jeet Singh

                                             ORDER

1.1. (Introduction to case of parties) - This complaint was filed on 25.10.2018 by narrating that the complainant/insured is consumer and he had obtained two Postal Life Insurance policies (PLI-P) from OPs/Insurers. Moreover, in January 2013, he had also taken two loans against security of two PLI policies to meet need of education of his children. The interest on loan was payable half yearly in June and December of each year. He had been paying half yearly interest regularly on those loan accounts from June 2013 to June 2016 (i.e. seven times interest was paid on each loan).  Thence, he decided to repay the loan amount, he went to Post Office and at PLI-counter he was advised that in the computer system  there is an outstanding loan in one account is of principal amount Rs.1,42,553/-+ interest of Rs.5940=Rs,1,48,493/-. In other loan account an outstanding loan is of principal amount Rs.90,161/- + Rs.3757/- = Rs.93,818/-. The total outstanding amount advised was Rs.2,42,411/- (Later-on these amounts were confirmed in RTI also). Then complainant had requested that he had been paying the interest regularly and outstanding amount would be lesser than the amount advised, but the complainant was asked that system would accept the amount being shown and no other amount in order to repay the loan and to close loan accounts.

          The complainant was constraint to deposit the amount advised and amount was paid in cash.  However, it was revealed that instead of seven times deposits of interest, the system was not updated from time to time and loan accounts were updated five times only instead of seven times, an excess amount of Rs.43,453/- was got deposited from him.  Moreover, an unnecessary bias and one sided inquiry was ordered for deposit of amount in cash, complainant's ITRs were called, which were furnished showing deposit of amount and income tax authorities were also informed by OPs to harass the complainant, whereas there was notification to deposits the amount for PLI; there were crores of rupees deposited as premium/installments  under PLI throughout the country. The Policy bonds were also not released despite repeated requests and entire loan amount was repaid. There is deficiency of services, unfair trade practice, harassment and agony by OPs.

          That is why the complainant seeks direction against OPs - (a) to pay/refund the excess loan amount  got deposited as Rs. 43,453/- with interest @, 18% pa from the date of deposit i.e. 12.11.2016 (b) release the two original policy bonds because of re-payment of entire loan amount; (c) to pay compensation/damages of Rs.18 lakhs for causing physical strain, mental torture, fabricated complaint, one sided enquiry, threats to file FIRs by the officers of OPs;  by taking into consideration  complainant's status of OPs' departmental employee and trauma of mental agony suffered by him during the last two years, (d) to pay costs of Rs. 10,000/-  and (e) appropriate penalty for causing torture to complainant. 


1.2.    Whereas  all the OPs opposed the complaint on all counts that neither there is any deficiency of services nor unfair trade practice or any mala-fide, rather every things was being done within the parameters of law, norms, rules, particularly the complainant himself is Officer of the OPs as well as he delivers lecturers for certain field of the department.  There was some system/technical error, due to record/entries were not updated and later it was rectified. However, the complainant of his own deposited excess amount and in case more or less amount is deposited, it is accepted by department,  subject to its consequences. The complainant cannot blame OPs. Moreover, amount was deposited in WOS currency despite asking him to tender the payment by cheque, since there was demonetization of currency notes of Rs.500/- and Rs.1,000/-.  

1.3. (Other developments, including the pending of this complaint) -  There has been lengthy correspondence between the parties prior to filing of complaint, inclusive of allegations and counter-allegations, apart from complaint’s applications and appeal under RTI. Complainant's both PLI policies became matured; both the policies were discharged/redeemed, after the stage of close of evidence by the parties. However, complainant has grievances that the amount was not paid on dates of maturity but after delay of 11 months in one policy and delay of 6 months in another policy.  The complainant is entitled for interest for such delayed periods. Moreover, the excess amount was got deposited in November 2016, it ought to have been returned in December, 2016 but it was not returned till direction of CIC, it was returned on 1.7.2021 and amount was to be returned with interest as complainant is entitled for interest on delay payment.

1.4 In the aforementioned paragraphs, the gist of dispute has been introduced, whereas the complainant has been prosecuting the complaint himself. The complainant, rejoinder after reply by OP, evidence and  initial written arguments was as of original complaint, however, on the eve of development of circumstances, there are additional/supplementary arguments, which are admixture of case PLI policies as well as initial issue of excess amount with all contemporary documents, they are over-lapping. Similarly, OPs also filed their joint reply with documents, then evidence and written arguments as per original plea but lateron because of changed developed circumstances,  additional written arguments were filed twice by OPs, repeating the previous plea as well as additional plea. 

          In order to keep and maintain symmetry & clarity, care is being taken in this final order to specify the case of loan accounts inter-se the complainant and OPs as well as to specify  & deal with PLI-policy matter separately. The following tables are prepared with material information, being culled out from undisputed record/facts, from the point of PLI policies as well as Loan Accounts, which will make it convenient to put the scattered case of parties at one place-

Table-I of PIL- Policy with other details-

Table-II  of deposit of excess amount of loan with other details-

2.1.1 (Status of parties & case of complainant ) - The complainant has been working in the department of posts since 1982 as he joined as LDC through Staff Section Commission, New Delhi. Presently he has been working as Senior Accounts Officer in the Department of Telecom, Sanchar Bhavan, New Delhi. He  along-with his family [comprising of two daughters one son and wife, who all are highly educated and all are working] lives in Gurugram. The complainant's both daughters have gone abroad recently for their post graduation courses after completing graduate course in India in Architecture and Information Technology. Moreover, the complainant has been delivering lecture on Postal Life Insurance whenever invited officially by institutions namely (a) National Institute of Communication Finance, Ghaziabad., (b) Rafi Ahmed Kidwai National Postal Academy, Ghaziabad. (c) National Institute of Communication Finance, Ghitorni and (d) GM Finance, Postal Accounts Office, Delhi-54.

2.1.2  The Opposite Parties are a Department of Govt. of India known as Department of Posts, under the Ministry of Communication and are responsible for carrying the Postal Services throughout India, and work is further distributed on Circle basis, each circle comprises of an Indian State.  In addition, Department of Post also carries the business of Insurance under the brand name of
"Postal Life Insurance" on all India basis and the work relating to the field of Insurance is also divided on circle basis, each circle is served by an Assistant Divisional Manager known as ADM/PLI. The ADM/ PLI is responsible for developing the business of Insurance in the entire circle along with a team of Development Officers, Field Officers and the service of retired officials of the Department of Post are also taken in carrying and developing the business of Insurance. All other after sale Services are also provided by the ADM/PLI, who further reports to the Director Postal Services known as DPS in a Postal Circle. DPS reports to the Post Master General, who is known as PMG in a Postal Circle, and the PM reports to Chief Post Master General, who is the head of the Circle. In the present matter, Delhi Postal Circle with Headquarter at Meghdoot Bhawan Link Road Jhandewalan New Delhi is involved. In practice, the Postal Department deals with the business of Insurance for coverage of life of the insured Person, and a lump-sum amount equivalent to sum assured is promised to be paid to the Insurant on completion of the Term of the Insurance Policy, along with all accrued bonus thereon; the rate of bonus is declared on annual basis.  In case, the Insured dies before completion of the Term of the Policy, the amount of sum assured along with all accrued bonus is paid to the nominee of the insured person. The Headquarter of Postal Life Insurance is situated at Chanakyapuri New Delhi. This business of insurance is wholly owned by the Department of Posts and all the rules and regulations are followed by all the Postal Circle in India, as and when the same are issued by the PLI Headquarter New Delhi, which is headed by Chief General Manager.

          Primarily, this business of Insurance was started by Department of Post around 150 years back for the protection of their own employees, later on it was extended to the Central Govt. Employees, State Government Employees, all School teachers, employees of public sector Banks and finally it was opened for working Engineers, Chartered Accounts and Architects. But the Department of Post has not obtained the licence from IRDA till date for extending the facility of Insurance to a common man.

2.2.1 (Case of complainant of loans) -  On 20.01.2001 the complainant purchased PIL policy bearing no. DLYS43264-T EA/60 for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 and on 19.12.2006, he purchased another PIL policy no. DLYS84475-P for sum insured of Rs. 3,00,000/- under Yugal Suraksha Scheme [wherein lives of husband and wife are covered simultaneously and premium is paid either of them] after about 13 years of first policy and 8 years of second policy, the OP4 of its own converted the policies to simple endowment policies in 2014, the existing life coverage of complainant’s wife was removed.

          In January 2013, the complainant availed loan of Rs. 74,000/- and Rs. 1,17,000/- against both the PLI policies, the total loan of Rs. 1,91,000/- [i.e. Rs. 74,000/-+ Rs. 1,17,000/-] was disbursed to complainant through Parliament Head Post Office, two loan passbooks bearing loan account no. LA-DP-26946 and DL-DT-26945 were issued.  The interest was payable half-yearly in June and December of each year respectively as Rs.3,700/- & Rs.5,850/- on each loan. The complainant availed loan of Rs.1,91,000/- for higher education of his children, who were studying in technical college, good amount had to be paid in the form of tuition fees and other educational charges including hostel etc.

2.2.2. The complainant followed the financial discipline of paying the interest regularly in June and December of each year, the interest stand paid from June 2013 to June 2016, paragraph no. 7 of the complaint gives comprehensive detail with specific amount and name of post office where amount used to be deposited, however, the relevant facts, year and other data are already detailed in Table-II of paragraph 1.4 above.

          The complainant illustrates with an example in paragraph no. 8 of the complaint that in case one does not pay interest amount, then it becomes component of principle amount and interest will be computed on the cumulative amount of loan amount plus interest, the subsequent interest is to be computed on cumulative principal amount.

2.2.3 On 12.11.2016, the complainant went to GPO Delhi since he decided to repay the entire loan amount, he was advised that total outstanding amount is Rs. 2,42,411/- although he pointed out that amount being informed is on higher side, he has been paying the interest regularly up-to June 2016 and it was also revealed when complainant visited Delhi GPO that his loan accounts were updated 5 times instead of actual 7 times of payment of interest in June and December each year from June 2013 to June 2016. It does not require torepeat the facts as the substance has already been stated in paragraph no. 1.1 above to be read with Table-II in para no. 1.4 above.

          Since the complainant had been paying interest regularly, he had applied under RTI to provide him the details of outstanding amount, information was provided of outstanding amount of Rs. 2,42,411/-, as shown on Table-II above. In addition the complainant also sought information of actual amount payable, which was Rs. 1,98,598/- but despite it,  he was asked to deposit the amount which was shown in the system of OPs, since system would not accept any other amount to close the loan accounts except the amount being shown in the system.

2.2.4. When complainant pursued the matter with the OPs, another chapter was opened in the form of certain enquiries, delay in refund of the excess amount, complaints to income tax authority, whether the cash deposited on 12.11.2016 was declared in the record of ITR, department enquiry was ordered, there are two different reports/versions by the same enquiry officer;  the complainant complied with certain enquiries by furnishing the income tax return copy, furnishing other detail asked for as well as the complainant keep on requesting the OPs to refund of his excess amount got deposited, which he was constrained to deposit as per the outstanding amount being shown in the system of OPs. Whereas, the OPs kept pending the refund of excess money on one plea or other plea that matter is sub-judice before the tax authorities or final outcome is awaiting, whereas OPs were knowing notification dated 15.11.2016 by the Central Board of Direct Taxes that premium under PLI may be deposited with the post office and there is no violation on any count by the complainant; complainant also placed on record copy of notification. Finally, the complainant had to apply and obtain information under RTI, apart from filing of appeals. Thence, on 01.07.2021 pursuant to orders by CIC, the amount was released to him, which ought to have been released in December, 2016. His insurance policy bonds were also not released on the same set of stand of the OPs.

          The complaint is accompanied with all documentary record, which have been narrated in the aforementioned paragraphs especially to mention letter/ correspondence for release of original policy bond (Annexure-1-16, Annexure 18-22) relevant information under RTI, notification dated 15.11.2016, enquiry reports.

2.2.5. (Relief claimed by complainant in respect loans)- The complainant seeks refund of excess amount of Rs. 43,453/- with interest at the rate of 18% pa from 16.12.2016, apart from release of two original policy bonds, which the OPs had not released despite requests in writing from to time, after repayment of entire loan amount on 16.11.2016.  

          The complainant has also grievances against OPs of  causing  him mental torture and harassment of severe degree by authorities meted  to him in non-contingence of his requests for refund/ release of policy bonds and failed in their duty under obligation; Insults by their actions in fabrication of false complaint against the complainant and threatening of FIR against him besides. huge loss of interest money by post department's delays in refund of amount
due. He also claims other relief of compensation, costs and punitive measures.

2.3.1 (Complainant's plea of PLIs in arguments)- When the case was after evidence of the parties and it was pending for final hearing, certain developments took place and one of them is that maturity period of both the PLI was saturated. The complainant was released the amount but it was not released in time schedule. One policy amount was released after 11 months of maturity and another was released after six months. Its relevant detailed is already given in Table-I of paragraph 1.4 above.

2.3.2. (Complainant's plea of relief in respect of PLI)- When the complaint was pending, evidence of parties were already recorded and matter was sub-judice for arguments, the development took place in the form of maturity of complainant’s two PLI policies, first policy was matured on 20.07.2020 and other policy was matured on 19.12.2020, correspondingly the maturity value of first policy was Rs. 4,40,800/- and maturity value of other policy was Rs. 5,54,100/-, however, the amounts were not paid on maturity but this maturity amount was paid in July 2021, there is a delay of 11 months in releasing the amount respect of first policy and 6 months delay in respect of second policy. The relevant information has already been compiled in Table-1 above.

          The complainant claims interest of 18% pa for delay of 11 months in respect of first policy, he computes amount of Rs. 72,732/- from  August 2020 to June 2021 and similarly in respect of second insurance policy, the complainant claims interest at the rate of 18% and interest amount is computed as Rs. 49,869/-. The total interest claimed is Rs. 1,22,601/-. On the last date of hearing (i.e. 01.05.2023) the complainant filed supplementary calculations upto April 2023 and he has further computed interest on the aforementioned amount of Rs. 1,22,601/-.

          As such this is the complete case of complainant on all counts.

 3.1   (Case of OP)- OP1 to OP4 filed their joint written statement under the signature of Sh. Roop Chand, Assistant Director (Admn) GPO, New Delhi-01. It is composite reply of various facts, some of them are admitted facts, there are also explanations to many facts and other facts have been denied on behalf of OPs.

3.2. There is no dispute that the complainant had obtained two PLI policies and later in the year 2013 he  took two loans against the security of two PLI policies. However, policy no. DLYS43264-T for sum insured of Rs. 2,00,000/- and other policy DLYS84475-P for sum insured of Rs. 3,00,000/- were wrongly accepted in the system as Yugal Suraksha Policy because of some technical glitch, actually it was endowment assurance PLI no. DL43264-T and DL84475P, the same were corrected in place of wrongly mentioned nos.  DLYS43264-T and DLYS84475-P; appropriate passbook of PLI policies with corrections were issued to the complainant and he had been depositing the premium in respect of endowment PLI policies. The complainant had paid premium lastly on 30.11.2018 for the month of 2018.

3.3.1 (Case of OPs on point of loans )- In January, the complainant took the loan vide loan account no. DL26945 and DP26946 respectively for Rs. 1,17,000/- and for Rs. 74,000/-, its detail has also been incorporated in Table-II in para no. 1.4 above. On 12.11.2016, the complainant had deposited Rs. 1,48,493/- for repayment of loan and also Rs. 93,918/- for another loan account and total amount deposited by him was Rs. 2,42,411/- at Delhi, GPO, Delhi but it was in WOS currency notes by using his capacity of former AAO (PLI) Delhi Circle. However, the complainant deposited excess amount of Rs.43,543/- against actual outstanding amount of loan including principal and interest on both PLI policies of Rs. 1,98,958/-. The said amount or the excess amount was deposited by the complainant of his own and if one deposits the amount actual or less amount, the system accepts it.

          The complainant approached Delhi, GPO, New Delhi by applying on 16.12.2016 for release of policy bonds and refund of extra amount of loan deposited, however, there was clarification by PLI Directorate vide letter no. 12-04/2016-LI dated 18.11.2016 that WOS currency notes cannot be accepted for PLI/ RPLI transactions. Further there was another letter dated 09.07.2018 by PLI Directorate that acceptance of PLI/RPLI premium and repayment of loan against PLI/ RPLI policies in demonetize currency notes of denomination of Rs. 500/- and Rs.1,000/- ceased to become legal tender with effect from 09.11.2016 have defeated the very purpose of demonetization. The clarification was issued to all circles. It was also brought to the notice of concerned tax authorities for conducting inquiry at their end. Complainant deposited of Rs. 2,42,411/- in his PLI loan accounts was also referred to Joint Director, Income Tax (I&CI), New Delhi E-2, Jahandewalan Extension, New Delhi that complainant had deposited the WOS notes on 12.11.2016. The outcome of inquiry report from Income Tax Department is still awaited. But the complainant filed the complaint before the Consumer Fouram.

3.3.2. Since the complainant had requested for refund of excess amount and policy bonds, however, it could not be approved as the original file PLI policy no. DL 43264-T was not traceable and not available at New Delhi, GPO. However, with regard to other policy DL84475-P, complainant refused on phone to take sanctioned amount of Rs. 16,834/- as well as the original policy bond by saying that he would collect together the refund amount and policy bonds in respect of both policies. Moreover, the matter was also forwarded to Delhi GPO for conducting appropriate inquiry in the matter and there was inquiry report by the Delhi GPO, showing that complainant had used his own influence upon the counter clerk to deposit the premium and insisted repayment of loan amount in old currency notes. The reply further narrates about the other steps and developments taken place from time to time, with request to dismiss the complaint for want of any deficiency in services or harassment or agony against the OPs.

          The reply is accompanied with record of inquiry report of 14.02.2017, the letters and request sent by complainant to OPs, office memorandum dated 18.11.2016 of OPs as well as other developments taken place between the parties, inclusive of copy of policy bonds, showing correction of policy numbers, amount of premium, maturity dates etc., apart from manually written endorsement in the middle of policy, which is illegible to be read.

3.3.3 (Case of OPs on point of PLI Policies) - Since the complainant had asked for interest on the PLI policies from dates of the maturity period till the amount was actually paid in July 2021, however, this contentions of complainant has been opposed by the OPs by filing their own written arguments, briefly the complainant himself was employee of OPs, he has also been delivering lectures at the Institution pertaining to insurance subject and he is very well versed that as per PLI Rules, he has to apply for release of maturity amount, it was not done by him, therefore, he is not entitled for interest at any rate. There is no fault on the part of OPs as the amount of PLI policies was released immediately on filing the request. Lastly, when the insurance policy amount was released, the policy bond are taken back, consequently the complainant cannot be returned policy bond.

4.1. (Evidence)- Complainant S.C. Kapoor filed his affidavit of evidence dated 08.03.2019, it is a detailed affidavit alike complaint and there is a reliance of documentary record which was annexed with the complaint.

4.2. On the other side, OPs filed detailed affidavit of evidence of Sh. Roop Chand, Assistant Director (Admn) [who also authored joint reply to complaint], as evidence, it is also supplemented with the record filed with the reply.

5.1 (Final hearing)- Both the parties filed their respective written arguments. It was followed by further supplementary arguments in writing, to update the development taken place, especially the complainant informs that he had been released the excess amount on 01.07.2021 after decision by CIC New Delhi. Simultaneously, he is claiming interest on the delay part on excess amount as well as delay in releasing the policy amount. The complainant also filed copy of order of CIC, then OP's sanction/approval informed to CIC vide  letter dated 06.07.2021 to return the  excess amount.

5.2. On the other side, the OPs also filed their joint written arguments, it was followed by additional argument and further additional arguments being repetition as well as the latest information of release of PLI policy amount as well as refund of excess amount have been mentioned.

5.3. It does not require to repeat the contentions, the case of each party has already been narrated inclusive of changed circumstances between the time when complaint was filed and then at the stage of final argument, therefore, the core and narrow issues will be dealt appropriately.

5.4.    The complainant himself made the submissions orally, however, Ms.Divya Upadhay, Advocate for OPs presented submissions for all the OPs, the rival submission were on the lines of case of parties.

6.1 (Findings on the point of PLI policies)- The contentions of both the sides are considered analytically keeping in view material on record, majority of which is documentary in nature, apart from the developments took place vis a vis by splitting situations involved.

          Firstly, the point of PLI policies is being taken. Now it is manifest that the complainant had taken two PLI policies, one was for sum insured of Rs. 2,00,000/- and another was for Rs. 3,00,000/-. Their maturity dates were 20.07.2020 and 19.12.2020 but the amounts were released in July 2021 after maturity period. The complainant seeks interest because of delayed payment, which is opposed by the OP1 to OP4 that amount was released without delay.

6.2. In order to adjudicate this issue, section 13(2)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is perused and in nutshell the consumer Forum/Commission has to decide the dispute on the basis of evidence brought before it in respect of the 'cause of action' mentioned in the complaint. Whereas, the complaint was filed on 25.10.2018 in respect of  want of refund of excess amount, want of return insurance bonds and other relief. However, the issue of interest on delayed period of release of amount of PLI policy had arisen after maturity dates of policies of 20.07.2020 and 19.12.2020, that too during pending of complaint, however, it was not brought as subject matter in the complaint by amendments to be  another cause of action for adjudication. Whereas, the complaint reached at the stage of arguments, then the PLI policies matured, its amounts were released but after substantive delay, the complainant is claiming interest component for delay period.        However, there was no amendment in the complaint incorporated on issue of delayed release of amount of PLI policies. Consequently, when it is not subject matter or cause of action in complaint nor any such relief in prayer clause of complaint, it cannot be determined in terms of section 14 r/w section 13(2)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is not a pure question of law but mixed question of facts and law, thus it cannot be decided just on the basis of arguments without being cause of action in the complaint. To that extent, the request of complainant is declined.

6.3.1 (findings on the point of loan accounts)- The case of each party is also considered, keeping in view their pleading as well as weighing their evidence, including the documentary record of the parties. The material facts of 'excess deposited amount' have already been compiled in Table-II, which is also not disputed. But there are rival stands and explanation to justify their own case, however, on the basis evidence of documentary records, the following conclusions are drawn:-

(i) it is admitted case of OPs that there was excess amount of Rs. 43,453/- got deposited on 12.11.2016 from the complainant in the office of OPs, in order to repay entire loan amount of two accounts;

(ii) the complainant contends that he was asked to deposit the amount of Rs. 2,42,411/- being principal and interest amount for repayment of loan amounts as it was being shown in the computer system of OPs and also asked for to clear loan accounts but according to OPs the complainant himself insisted and deposited the amounts.

          Whereas, on the basis of  evidence, the plea of complainant sustains and acceptable, but  contrary plea of OPs does not sustain and not acceptable, since complainant applied and obtained the information under RTI, which is confirming in reply dated 07.09.2018 (Annexure-24) about the outstanding amount of Rs. 2,42,411/-, which is also detailed in Table- II above. Consequently, the complainant was constraint by the records of OPs;

(iii) the OPs could not establish that there was some other  outstanding loan amount in its computer system to be payable by the complainant, in fact there cannot be as OPs provided information under RTI the same amount of Rs.2,42,411/- payable by the complainant;

(iv) OPs also admit that there was error in the system, which was rectified subsequently. The complainant cannot be blamed thereof;

(v)  the evidence also establishes that the complainant had not voluntary deposited the excess amount of Rs. 43,453/- but he was  constraints  that if he wants to repay the entire loan amount, then he had to deposit the amount being in computer operating system of OPs;  he had no option but to deposit it;

(vi)  since excess amount of Rs.43,453/- was got deposited on 12.11.2016 from complainant, he had asked for refund of that amount, which was later released to him on 1.7.2021;

(vii) the OPs also contend that there was no delay on their part but one of the loan file was not located as well as inquiries report were being awaited besides  report of other authorities.

          However, there are two inquiries report of department on record  of single inquiry, first is of 01.02.2017 and other report is of 14.02.2017; the same are given as a single report. However, the names of witnesses mentioned in the reports are different. It was never a case of re-inquiry or two inquiries, there is single Inquiry Officer, Chief Post Master, Delhi GPO. The vital inconsistency is self speaking;

(viii) OPs, in their additional submissions of 15.01.2022 contends that the complainant was issued refund order dated 16.12.2016 for Rs. 16,834/- but he refused on telephone, which is opposed by the complainant. But, the circumstances are not convincing in favour of OPs,  if there was refund order and amount was to be sent, there would have been record of posting or postal tickets but no such record has been filed.

          The OPs in their additional submissions of 29.09.2021 supplements refund order of Rs. 43,453/- and this refund order specifies that the amount is being refunded pursuance of ADM (PLI) letter no. PLI/ONLINE RTI/2021-22 dated 28.06.2021, which was subsequent to decision dated 27.05.2021 by CIC New Delhi in favour of complainant. The complainant has also filed his additional submissions on 30.09.2021 accompanying with copy of letter 06.07.2021 received from CPIO in second appeal preferred by the complainant, establishing that the complainant was paid the excess amount consequent to decision of CIC New Delhi and subsequently by letter dated 06.07.2021, it was informed to CIC New Delhi by the office of Directorate of PLI, Chanakyapuri, Delhi.  Had there not been order of  CIC, the OPs would not have released the amoun?

(ix) The excess amount was deposited on 16.11.2016, the complainant claims interest from December 2016 and it is apparent the excess amount was refunded on 01.07.2021 by way of cheque no. 055267 dated 01.07.2021, the copy is filed by OPs in their addition submissions on 29.09.2021.

          Therefore, the amount which ought to have been returned/ refunded in December 2016 was refunded/ returned on 01.07.2021 that too after decision by CIC, New Delhi. The complainant cannot be blamed for this delay but OPs are responsible, and

(x)  the aforementioned circumstances are establishing case of deficiency of services as well as unfair trade practice against the OPs.

6.3.2. Since the OPs money was retained by the OPs and complainant was deprived of his money, which he had deposited under the constrained of operating system of OPs. Had that money was with the complainant, he would have earned interest or could utilize the same. Thus, he is held entitled for the interest on that excess amount of Rs. 43,453/- from the period December, 2016 to June 2021. Now simple question arises 'what would be reasonable the rate of interest to be allowed?

          The complainant claims interest of 18%pa in his complaint and evidence, which is also reiterated in the arguments. However, there is no agreed rate of interest so far returned amount is concerned nor any reasons explained for claiming 18% interest. But certainly the complainant was depositing the interest on the loan amount in the loan accounts and it was based on some rate of interest. On simple calculations, the rate of interest is discovered at 10% pa on the loan taken. It would be appropriate and justify both sides by determining and allowing same rate of interest of 10% pa on excess amount of Rs.43,453/-, (which stand refunded on 01.07.2021). It is further held that the complainant is entitled for interest for period from December 2016 to June 2021; the amount comes to Rs.  19,915/-, which stand allowed in favor of the complainant and against the OPs.

6.3.3  The complainant had further calculated interest upto April 2023 at the rate of 18% on the interest amount accrued in the last filed supplementary calculations that since accrued interest amount is yet to be paid by OPs. In fact the complainant requests that he may be further allowed interest on the 'interest amount accrued' and payable, however, this request of complainant is not tenable in terms of Section 3(3)(c) of the Interest Act, 1978 that 'interest' cannot be awarded upon the 'interest' allowed, the interest allowed may be 'amount of interest' or 'rate of interest'. Since further interest is barred, therefore, no further interest can be allowed to the complainant on the amount of Rs.19,915/-. This contention is also disposed off.

6.3.4.  The complainant had requested for release of insurance policy bonds since loan amounts were repaid and loan accounts were closed in 2016. The OPs were required to release the bonds.  But, during the tenure of dispute, the maturity period arrived and PLI policies were discharged in July 2021, hence OPs took the stand that complainant cannot be returned the policy bonds after discharge of policies.      However, circumstances passed shows different foot prints. One file was not traceable by the OPs is an admission but excess was tendered on 01.07.021 after decision of CIC, New Delhi. The OPs never returned the policy bonds despite requests of the complainant after repayment of loan on 12.11.2016 and in case with the passage of time, the maturity dates arrived and later policy amount released, then complainant cannot be handed over the original policy bonds, but this does not dilute or exonerate unjustified acts of OPs. It is fact that now prayer clause, for directions to release the policy bonds, becomes infractuous. Accordingly, this issue stands disposed off.

6.4.1. The complainant has many grievances of mental agony and harassment, which he faced, they have already been referred and mentioned, not only in his service department but also before others, apart from moving post to pillar to collect information under RTI, the complainant has also proved notification dated 15.11.2016 by the Central Board of Direct Taxes that PLI policy premium etc was subject matter of that notification and Post Master General was the reporting person under certain circumstances as well as there is no report by the Income Tax Authorities. The inquiry reports do not mention that the complainant was called in the inquiry but two reports were filed, showing different witnesses. The other efforts made by the complainant also revealed many information towards establishing the case of complainant and certain facts are also admitted by the OPs, like, its operating system was not correct or otherwise, insurance policies were initially wrongly issued under Yugal Suraksha Scheme, it was rectified manually and also later-on when excess amount was got deposited by the OPs, higher outstanding amount was advised to repay entire loans amount, since accounts were updated five times in place of seven times when interest were deposited, which means the interest components of two years were not credited in the account, for which complainant was made to suffer for long. It is gross negligence and also deficiency of services on the part of OPs, for which complainant suffered hard. The totality of circumstances clearly makes out a case of harassment, humiliation and mental agony.  On the other side, as appearing the complainant has learned and gained experience during functioning of his office, he developed it more and he is still rendering services and parting with knowledge to the same department as a resource person being a guide, tutor, trainer etc. for employees and staff so that skill, efficiency, accuracy and good performance are performed by all concerned. Thus, the complainant deserves compensation for harassment, physical and mental agony and he is held entitled for compensation/ damages, which are quantified as Rs.50,001/- under the peculiar circumstances of this case.

6.4.2. The voluminous record of correspondence by the complainant, his personal visits at different location of offices of OPs, seeking information under RTI, filing of the appeals before Appellant Authorities and other circumstances are not only suggesting deficiency of service, negligence on the part of OPs but he was harassed and humiliated, he was put to other perils so that he may succumb to OPs. These things are expected to be not repeated on the parts of OPs with others and in order to deter from indulging in such wrongs, it is appropriate to award punitive damages and the circumstances are suggesting to award punitive damages of Rs.10,000/- against OPs as a deterrent effect.

7. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed in favour of complainant and against the OPs to pay jointly and severally (interest) amount of Rs.19.915/-, apart from damages/compensation of Rs.50,001/-; punitive damages of Rs.10,000/- and costs of Rs. 10,000/-, which are payable within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. 

8.  Announced on this June Ist, 2023 [ज्येष्ठ 11 , साका 1945]. Copy of this Order be sent/provided forthwith to the parties free of cost as per rules for necessary compliance.

[Vyas Muni Rai]                        [ Shahina]                            [Inder Jeet Singh]

      Member                       Member (Female)                                President