BEFORE THE SOUTH MUMBAI DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
Puravatha Bhavan, 1st Floor, General Nagesh Marg, Near Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Opp. M.D. College, Parel, Mumbai – 400 012.
O.No.
Complaint No.SMF/MUM/CC/2014/102
Date of filing : 13/05/2014
Date of Order: 28/11/2017
Mr. Dushyant Prataprai Mehta,
(Karta of HUF)
601, 6th Floor, Rukhmani Niwas,
Mathuradas Road Extension,
Next to Vanza Wadi, Kandivali (West),
Mumbai – 400 067. ….. Complainant.
V/s.
- Director,
Mumbai General Post Office,
Department Of Post India,
Mumbai – 400 001.
- The Deputy Director (Saving Bank),
Public Provident Fund Account,
Head Office, General Post Office,
Mumbai – 400 001.
- Assistant Director,
Post Office (Saving Bank -1),
Public Provident Fund Account,
General Post Office,
Mumbai – 400 001. ….. Opposite Party
Coram:
Shri. G.K. Rathod : Hon’ble President
Shri. S.R. Sanap : Hon’ble Member
Appearance : For Complainant – Adv. Shri. Mangesh L. Upadhyay
For Opponent Nos. 1 to 3 - Adv. Shri. H.D. Rathod
// JUDGMENT //
PER SHRI. G.K. RATHOD – HON’BLE PRESIDENT
The facts giving rise to the present complaint briefly stated are as follows :
The Complainant is a karta of Hindu Undivided family. The Opponent Nos. 1 to 3 are Postal Department. The Complainant opened a Public Provident Fund A/c No. 11540 at General Post Office, Mumbai on 27/3/1997 and Account was closed on 7/6/2013. When the Account was opened the cheque of Rs.50,000/- given to the Opponent. The Account was closed on 7/6/2016 and the closing balance in the PPF Account as on 31/3/2013 was Rs. 24,12,734/-. The Complainant further stated that the closing balance in PPF Account was Rs. 21,18,934/- as on 31/3/2012. The Complainant further deposited Rs 1,00,000/- extended the Account from 1/4/2013 to 31/3/2017 for 5 financial years. The Oppo nent No.3 credited the interest of Rs.1,93,800/- @ 8.8% p.a. for period 1/4/2012 to 31/3/2013 and endorsed on the passbook on 10/5/2013 and shown the closing balance was Rs. 24,12,734/- as on 31/3/2013, document is attached at Exh. ‘A’.
(2) It is further contended that on 28/5/2013, the Complainant received a letter from the Opponent intimated that he should contact in Office with the PPF Pass Book for some urgent work and when he approached the Opponent No. 3, he has directed to deposit the Pass Book and told him that his Pass Book will be endorsed and closed according to new rules and the credit balance shall be paid to the Complainant, document is at Exh. ‘B’. Thereafter, on 12/6/2013, the Opponent handed over cheque of Rs. 21,18,934/- dtd.7/6/2013 to the Complainant as a final closure of the Account. The Complainant was shocked and surprised that the closing balance on 31/3/2013 in PPF Account was Rs. 24,12,734/-, however, the amount was arbitrarily reduced by the Office of the Opponent No.3 to Rs. 22,18,934/- and thus, the interest amount of entry in the Pass book of Rs 193800/- was cancelled and debited without any just reason. The Complainant accepted the cheque of Rs. 22,18,934/- under protest and he informed the Opponent that the debit and cancellation of interest of Rs.1,93,800/- is made without any reason. The Complainant has sent a letter on 20/6/1993 for the remaining amount of interest of Rs. 1,93,800/- for the period from 1/4/2012 till 31/3/2013. The Opponent No. 2 sent a letter to the Complainant and accepted their mistake for accepting the deposit of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 12/5/2012 and credit of interest for 1/4/2012 to 31/3/2013 in PPF Account of the Complainant letter dtd. 24/7/2013. Thereafter, the Complainant has made various correspondence to the Opponent but the Opponent has not give any response and therefore, he has filed this case. The Complainant filed documents alongwith the complaint, copy of the Pass Book issued to the Complainant, letter dtd. 20/6/2013, 24/7/2013 and other documents and claimed a relief that Opponents may be directed to pay the interest of Rs. 1,93,800/- for the period from 1/4/2012 to 31/3/2013 for his PPF Account and further interest @8.80% till the amount is paid, as also claimed Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation and legal and other expenses.
(3) After receipt of notice on behalf of all the Opponents, written statement is filed on 28/8/2014, in which, it is contended that the complaint is bad in law for non- joinder of necessary party i.e. Union of India and also not joined all the members of the Complainant H.U.F. which is necessary. It is further stated that PPF Account is a creation of Public Provident Fund Act, 1968 framed thereunder by the notification of the Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs New Delhi and from time to time, the Ministry of Finance issued notifications regarding percentage and payment of interest and other matters to govern the fund. Department of Post Office i.e. the Opponent has to follow the orders by issuing its own notification for the staff and the subscriber public. A subscriber is supposed to know the current status of the law concerning PPF Account. Public notices are displayed in the Postal premises and postal staff is ready to guide the public. A PPF Account is opened initially for a period of 15 years, it can be extended for a further period of 5 years under some conditions and the option has to be exercised within one year from the date of maturity of the original Account. In the present case, the Complainant opened PPF Account on 21/3/1997 (HUF) No. 11540 at General Post Office, it was for a period of 15 years from 21/3/1997 to 31/3/2012. As initial opening subscription, he deposited sum of Rs. 50,000/- and the Complainant continued to deposit subscription of various amounts from time to time in the said Account.
(4) It is further submitted that on 31/12/2010, the Directorate of Posts, New Delhi issued a Public Memo No. 32-01/2010-SB, reiterated by SB order No. 23/2010. They directed that all PPF Account opened prior to 13/5/2005 in the name of HUF would be closed on maturity and will not be extended for any further period. Therefore, this Complainant is expected to be in the knowledge. The Complainant’s Account automatically closed on 31/3/2012, as it had matured on that date and the closing balance was Rs. 21,18,934/-. It is further contended that inspite of that Complainant approached the counter clerk and applied for an extension of his PPF Account (HUF) for further 5 years till 31/3/2017 and also offered deposit amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. The counter clerk made a bonafide and unintentional mistake probably under the impression that the PPF Account was an individual subscriber’s account. He accepted the said amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- and made a suitable entries in the Pass Book and balance amount became Rs. 22,18,934/-. It is further submitted that on 12/3/2013, the Directorate of Posts, New Delhi issued another public memo No. 32-01/2013-SB, reiterated by SB order No. 03/2013 and they directed that if any such interest in such PPF Account of HUF (mistakenly extended for another five years after the date of maturity) was issued, it should be immediately recovered from the Investor and if any subscription in such account was accepted (after maturity), it will not be eligible for any interest. In this case, the counter clerk updated Complainant’s Pass Book. By mistake, as stated therein an amount of annual interest of Rs. 1,93,800/- posted for the financial year 2012-13 and the total amount was shown Rs. 24,12,734/- and the counter clerk mistakenly extended the Complainants’ PPF account for further five years after its date of maturity (31/3/2012) accepting the subscription of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the financial year 2012-13 As this mistake was occurred, immediately the Opponent informed to visit Opponent’s office and contact the concerned clerk and the concerned clerk narrated the above facts to the Complainant and informed that entries were wrongly taken and for the correction he has to submit his Passbook to correct the entries and after receiving the passbook on 7/6/2013, the cheque of Rs 22,18,934/- was handed over to the Complainant this amount includes Rs. 21,18,934/- which was the closing balance on the date of maturity 31/3/2012 plus Rs. 1,00,000/- deposited by the Complainant subsequently and no interest was calculated or paid for the period after the date of maturity as directed by the aforesaid Government memo dtd. 12/3/2013. It is contended that the complaint is false the other contents are denied in toto. The entire amount is received by the Complainant and therefore, the complaint is liable for dismissed.
(5) Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the following points arose for my consideration.
Sr.No. | Points | Findings |
1. | Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opponent | No. |
2. | Whether the Complainant is entitled for the relief as claimed? | No. |
3. | What order? | As per final order. |
REASONING :
(6) Heard the arguments on behalf of the Complainant and the Opponent. Perused the contents of the complaint, affidavit, evidence, documents and case laws as also written statement, affidavit, documents placed on the record. From which we came to the conclusion that the Opponent has refunded cheque of Rs. 22,18,934/- dtd. 7//6/2013 on 12/6/2013 including the amount of Rs. 21,18,934/- which was the closing balance on the date of maturity dtd. 31/3/2012 plus Rs. 1,00,000/- deposited subsequently by the Complainant after the date of maturity and this act done by the Opponent as per Government Memo dtd. 12/3/2013. The PPF fund is a creation of Public Provident Fund Act enacted by the Parliament and Public Provident Fund Scheme framed thereunder by a notification of the Ministry of Finance, Department of Economics Affairs New Delhi and from time to time, Ministry of Finance issued a notification regarding percentage and payment of interest and other matters to govern the fund and the Opponent Department has to follow these orders by issuing its own notification for the staff and subscriber public and the every subscriber is supposed to know the current status of the law concerning PPF Account, public notices are displayed in the Postal premises. On 31/12/2010, Directorate Of Posts, New Delhi issued a public memo and as per the memo, they directed that all the PPF Account opened prior to dtd. 13/5/2005 in the name of HUF would be closed on maturity and will not be extended for further period and as per this memo, the Complainant HUF Account stood automatically closed as it had matured on that day and the closing balance of Rs. 21,18,934/-. Despite of that the Applicant Complainant deposited amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- in the said PPF Account for an extention of further five years and the Counter Clerk accepted and made entries in his passbook mistakenly. It is further noted that on 12/3/2013, the Directorate of Posts, New Delhi issued another public memo reiterated by SB order No. 3/2013 and directed that if any interest in PPF Account of HUF (mistakenly extended for another five years after the date of maturity) was issued, it should be immediately recovered from the investor and if any subscribtion in such account was accepted (after maturity) it will not eligible for any interest. In this case, the Complainant approached the counter clerk for updating his passbook and the counter clerk posted an annual interest of Rs 1,93,800/- for financial year 2012-13 and the total balance is shown Rs. 24,12,734/- and counter clerk mistakenly accepted Rs. 1,00,000/- for extention of further five years for HUF Account. When mistake came to the notice of the Opponent, they informed the Complainant and called with the Passbook and in view of the above notification, he is not entitled for further interest and they have handed over the cheque of Rs. 22,18,934/- to the Complainant and the Complainant accepted the same this amount includes Rs. 21,18,934/- the closing balance on the maturity and plus Rs. 1,00,000/- which was received from the Complainant. We found substance in the submission of the Opponent that they have worked and deducted the amount as per the Government and Postal Department and therefore, we do not find any substance that there is a deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Opponent Accordingly, we answered the point Nos. 1 and 2 negatively. The complaint is liable for dismissed hence the complaint is dismissed.
(7) With the aforesaid discussion and observations, we proceed to pass the following order :-
//O R D E R//
- The complaint stands dismissed.
- Parties to bear their own costs.
- Certified copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
(Shri. S.R. Sanap) (Shri.G.K. Rathod)
Hon’ble Member Hon’ble President
Note:- As the pleadings, affidavit, documents, written arguments of the parties are in English, the order in the proceeding is passed for the better knowledge of the parties in English.
vns
