DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, PUNJAB. 

Complaint Case No : CC/138/2022

Date of Institution : 02.05.2022

Date of Decision : 12.06.2024

Rajeev Kumar son of Sh. Sarab Dayal, KARTA of Rajeev Kumar (HUF), R/o B-IV/12, Geeta Bhawan, Ward No. 6, Barnala, Tehsil and District Barnala.  

                                        …Complainant

Versus

1. Department of Posts, Office of Chief Postmaster General, Punjab Circle, Chandigarh-160017 through its Dy. Divisional Manager (PLI).

2. Central Post Office, Sector 17, Chandigarh through its Post Master.

3. Superintendent of Post Office, Sangrur Division, Sangrur, District Sangrur through its Superintendent.

4. The Postmaster, Main Post Office, Barnala District Barnala.

                        …Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019

Present: Sh. Rajesh Mittal Adv counsel for complainant.

Sh. AK Jindal Adv counsel for opposite parties.

Quorum:-

1. Sh. Jot Naranjan Singh Gill : President

2. Smt Urmila Kumari : Member

3. Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg : Member

(ORDER BY URMILA KUMARI MEMBER):

    The complainant namely Rajeev Kumar has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against Department of Posts, Chandigarh and others. (hereinafter referred as opposite parties).  

2. The facts leading to the present complaint are that the complainant is the KARTA of Rajeev Kumar (HUF) and resident of Barnala. The complainant got opened a PPF account bearing Account No. 18461 in the name of Rajeev Kumar (HUF) on 28.3.2002 for a period of 15 years and deposited the amount in the said account on various intervals and on the lapse of period of 15 years at the time of maturity the opposite parties requested the complainant to continue this account for further five years by narrating that he will get a handsome return of interest on the amount and complainant agreed to extend the said PPF account for further five years and opposite parties extended the said PPF account for further period of five years, so the maturity date of said account became 31.3.2022. 

3. It is further alleged that the opposite parties issued a passbook of the said account to the complainant on 28.3.2022 and the entries of the amounts deposited by the complainant with the opposite party No. 4 were duly made in the passbook by the opposite party No. 4 and opposite party No. 4 was making entries of deposits and interests accrued thereon in the passbook on regular intervals. The complainant lastly deposited Rs. 1.5 lac in the said account on 15.3.2019. on 31.3.2022 an amount of Rs. 13,72,092/- was reflecting in the said account of the complainant with the opposite parties including interest and the entry qua the said amount of Rs. 13,72,092/- was also made by the opposite party No. 4 with reference No. 90960 in the passbook of above said account. 

4. It is further alleged that on the maturity of said PPF account, the complainant approached the opposite party No. 4 to release the amount to the complainant and on the request of the opposite party No. 4 the complainant handed over the original passbook to the opposite party No. 4 and opposite party No. 4 assured the complainant to issue a cheque for an amount of Rs. 13,72,092/- within a period of one week after completing the departmental formalities. The complainant approached the opposite party No. 4 after the expiry of one week period the opposite party No. 4 narrated that the opposite parties will issue a cheque amounting to Rs. 8,70,000/- approximately against the said PPF account to the complainant upon which the complainant was shocked to hear this and requested the opposite party No. 4 to make the payment of Rs. 13,72,092/- to the complainant which is reflecting in the passbook of the complainant as well as in the system of the opposite parties. 

5. It is further alleged that being aggrieved the complainant served a letter dated 11.4.2022 posted on 16.4.2022 to the opposite party No. 4 for release of the amount of Rs. 13,72,092/- to the complainant but with no result. Even the opposite parties did not bother to serve the reply of the said letter to the complainant which amounts to admission on the part of the opposite parties as well as clearly shows the malafide intention of the opposite parties. The act of the opposite parties comes with the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, the present complaint is filed for seeking the following reliefs.- 

1) The opposite parties jointly and severally be directed to release the payment of Rs. 13,72,092/- to the complainant alongwith up to date interest.

2) To pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for causing physical pain, mental agony and financial loss. 

3) To pay Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.

4) Any other relief, which this Commission may deems fit. 

6. Upon notice of this complaint the opposite parties appeared and filed written reply taking legal objections that the complainant has got no locus standi or cause of action to file the present complaint. The present complaint is bad on account of mis joinder and non joinder of necessary parties and not maintainable in the present form. The complainant filed the present complaint just to harass and pressurize the opposite parties. It is further submitted that a Public Provident Fund Account No. 18461 (2384704376) standing at Barnala SO in the name of Rajeev Kumar HUF was opened on 28.3.2022 which was to be closed after 15 years. On the date of maturity Sh. Rajeev Kumar (Karta) requested to continue this account for further five years. The complainant deposited Rs. 1,50,000/- in the said account on 15.3.2019. Further account was closed on 8.4.2022 by Barnala Post office with amount Rs. 8,70,000/- (with balance as on 28.3.2017) after deduction of Rs. 5,02,092/- out of total amount of Rs. 13,72,092/- up to date of closure of account. In this regard Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs issued gazette notification dated 7th December 2010 further circulated by RBI/2010-11/344 dated 27.12.2010 in which it is clearly mentioned that “Provided further that an account opened on behalf of a Hindu Undivided Family prior to the 13th day of May 2005, shall be closed after expiry of fifteen years from the end of the year in which the initial subscription was made and the entire amount standing at the credit of the subscriber shall be refunded, after making adjustments, if any, if respect of any interest due from the subscriber on loans taken by him. In the case of accounts opened on behalf of Hindu Undivided Family, where fifteen years from end of the year in which initial subscription was made, has already been completed, they shall also be closed at the end of current year, i.e. the 31st day of March 2011 and the entire amount standing at the credit of subscriber shall be refunded, after making adjustments, if any, in respect of any interest due from the subscriber on loans taken by him.”

7. On merits, the opposite parties reiterated all the facts as mentioned in the legal objections so there is no need to repeat the same. However, it is admitted that a cheque for an amount of Rs. 8.70,000/- has been issued in the name of Shri Rajeev Kumar. It is denied that complainant handed over original passbook to the opposite party No. 4 who assured the complainant to issue a cheque for an amount of Rs. 13,72,092/- within a period of one week after completing the departmental formalities. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Lastly, the opposite parties prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint with heavy costs throughout. 

8. In support of his complaint, the complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of passbook of PPF account with post office Ex.C-2, copy of application Ex.C-3, copy of postal receipt Ex.C-4, copy of PAN card Ex.C-5, copy of statement of account Ex.C-6 and closed the evidence. Rejoinder also filed by the complainant. 

9. To rebut the case of the complainant the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Narinder Singh Ex.OPs-1, copy of notification dated 7.12.2010 alongwith letter dated 27.12.2010 Ex.OPs-2, copy of letter dated 1.6.2011 Ex.OPs-3, copy of letter dated 17.6.2011 Ex.OPs-4, copy of cutting of newspaper dated 30.1.2011 Ex.OPs-5 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite parties.

10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record on the file. Written arguments also filed by both the parties. 

11. Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant opened a PPF account bearing account No. 18461 in the name of Rajeev Kumar (HUF) on 28.3.2002 for a period of 15 years and deposited the amount in the said account on various intervals. The opposite party No. 4 was making entry of deposits and interest accrued thereon in the passbook on regular intervals. The complainant lastly deposited Rs. 1.5 lac in the said account on 15.3.2019. On 31.3.2022 an amount of Rs. 13,72,092/- was reflecting in the above said account of the complainant with the opposite parties including interest (Ex.C-2 at Page No. 4). The said amount of Rs. 13,72,092/- was made by the opposite party No. 4 with reference No. 90960 in the passbook of the said account. 

12. On the maturity of the above said PPF (HUF) account, the complainant approached the opposite party No. 4 to release the above said amount to the complainant. But the opposite party No. 4 narrated to the complainant that they will issue a cheque amounting to Rs. 8,70,000/- approximately against the above said PPF (HUF) account.

13. Being aggrieved the complainant served a letter dated 11.4.2022 posted on 16.4.2022 to the opposite party No. 4 (Ex.C-3) for release of amount of Rs. 13,72,092/- to the complainant, but the complainant received no reply of the letter. 

14. Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties argued that the PPF account No. 18461 (2384704376) standing at Barnala SO in the name of Rajeev Kumar (HUF) was opened on 28.3.2002 which was to be closed after 15 years. On the date of maturity Sh. Rajeev Kumar (Karta) requested to continue this account for further five years. It is also admitted by the opposite parties that the complainant deposited Rs. 1,50,000/- in the above said account on 15.3.2019. It is further argued by the opposite parties that the account was closed on 8.4.2022 by Barnala Post Office with an amount of Rs. 8,70,000/- (with balance as on 28.3.2017) after deduction of Rs. 5,02,092/- out of total amount of Rs. 13,72,092/-. Ld. Counsel argued that the PPF (HUF) accounts are opened for a period of 15 years and PPF (HUF) are not extendable as per Government Instructions. In this regard the opposite parties have given reference of Government Gazette Notification of Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs dated 7.12.2010 and further circulated by RBI/2010-11/344 dated 27.12.2010. According to which PPF (HUF) account cannot be extended after 15 years (Ex.O.Ps-2 to Ex.O.Ps-5). 

15. During oral arguments the opposite parties brought two cheques dated 8.4.2022 and 6.6.2024 each with an amount of Rs. 8,72,376/- which were not accepted by the complainant. 

16. It is not disputed between the parties that the complainant has a PPF (HUF) account with the opposite parties which was opened on 28.3.2002 and was to be closed after 15 years. It is also not disputed that the complainant deposited Rs. 1,50,000/- in the above said account on 15.3.2019. The allegation of the complainant is that an amount of Rs. 13,72,092/- is reflecting in the above said account including interest in the passbook and in the system of the opposite parties. The opposite parties are releasing only Rs. 8,70,000/- (with balance as on 28.3.2017) after deduction of Rs. 5,02,092/- out of total amount of Rs. 13,72,092/-. If the account was closed on 28.3.2017 after 15 years then why the opposite parties got deposited Rs. 1,50,000/- on 15.3.2019 in the said account from the complainant. When Rs. 1,50,000/- have been got deposited by the opposite parties it is presumed that the account of the complainant is in running condition and is not closed. The opposite parties have failed to place on record any document to show that they have issued notice/letter to the complainant regarding the closing of PPF (HUF) account in the year 2017, instead got deposited an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- on 15.3.2019. It is also proved from the record that the opposite parties have enjoyed the above said amount for almost 5 years. The opposite parties have also failed to place on record any document to prove that they have issued/sent Government Notification issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs to the complainant in the shape of notice/letter regarding individual or PPF (HUF) account. So, this Commission is of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. 

17. In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is partly allowed and the opposite parties are directed to pay the amount of Rs. 13,72,092/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of 1.4.2022 till realization. The opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs. 5,500/- on account of consolidated amount of compensation as well as litigation expenses to the complainant. 

18. Compliance of the order be made within the period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order.

19. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance. 

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

          12th Day of June, 2024

 

 

        (Jot Naranjan Singh Gill)

            President

 

(Urmila Kumari)

Member

 

(Navdeep Kumar Garg)

Member