Date of filing: 28/12/2021
Judgment date: 25/04/2023
Mrs. Sashi Kala Basu, Hon’ble President
This complaint is filed by Dilip Kumar Jay Kumar (HUF) represented by its Karta Dilip Kumar Seksaria under section 35(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (referred as OPs hereinafter) namely (1) Divisional Head, Punjab National Bank and (2) Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank alleging deficiency in rendering of service on the part of the opposite parties.
Case of the complainant in short is that on 12th March, 2008 upon complying all formalities, complainant being the Karta of HUF opened one PPF Account being no. 166700PPF00000000113 in the name and style of Dilip Kumar Jai Kumar (HUF). The account was to be matured on 12/03/2023 after completion of 15 years and it could be extended for further period. The complainant deposited the amount on different dates in the said account commencing from 12/03/2008 to till May 2019. The said account was heaving credit balance of Rs. 13,42,378/- only as on 31/03/2019 with interest credited till that date. However on 27/11/2019, when the complainant visited the OP 2 to make further deposit, he was told that they could not continue with HUF account for PPF Scheme as per the Central Government verdict “after 2005 HUF PPF not valid” and complainant was informed by the Branch Manager / OP 2 that the said account had to close and interest had to reverse to Nagpur Cell. So complainant asked for refund of principal amount and accumulated interest credited up to 31/03/2019 which stood at Rs. 14,42,378/-. But as no response was received by the complainant from the OP, complainant again requested by communication dated 27/10/2020 to close the said PPF account and to refund the principal amount with interest which on said date stood as 16,18,435/-. OP 2 by a letter dated 08/01/2021 informed that at present they could refund the principal amount only. So the complainant accepted the principal amount deposited in the said PPF account “under protest” and OP2 remitted a sum of Rs. 10,16,000/- being the principal amount instead of Rs. 16,44,880/- which included the interest. So as the complainant was deprived of interest, present complaint has been filed by the complainant praying for directing the opposite parties to pay interest for the period from 12/03/2008 to 30/11/2021 amounting to Rs. 6,67,169/-, to pay Rs. 30,000/- as compensation and Rs. 20,000/- as litigation cost.
On perusal of the record it appears that on receipt of the notice OPs did not turn up and so the case has been heard exparte.
During the course of evidence, complainant filed examination in chief on affidavit and ultimately argument has been advanced. BNA is also been filed by the complainant.
So the only point requires determination is whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASON
In support of his claim, complainant has filed the several communications exchanged between the parties wherefrom it appears that it is an admitted fact that complainant opened PPF account in the year 2008 as HUF. The PPF account was to mature on 12.03.2023 and complainant deposited the amount in the said PPF account as HUF till May 2019. However according to complainant when in November 2019 he went to deposit the amount in the said HUF account for PPF, OP2 told the complainant that they could not continue the said HUF Account for PPF as per Central Government guidelines that “after 2005 HUF PPF was not valid” and the interest was to reverse to Nagpur Cell. From the letters dated 08.01.2021 and 20.01.2021, it is evident that said PPF account of the complainant was closed ultimately and principal amount of RS. 10,16,000/- deposited in the account was refunded by remitting it in another account maintained with the Yes Bank. Complainant had accepted the said principal amount “under protest”.
It may be pertinent to point out that in spite of the guidelines of the Government, OPs allowed the complainant to open the account under PPF Scheme as HUF and further allowed to deposit the amount in the said account till May 2019. Complainant has also filed the copy of passbook. So, if the OPs have allowed the complainant to deposit the amount from 2008 to till 2019 against the guidelines of the Govt., they cannot now deprive the complainant of the interest payable on the same. It appears that OPs themselves were not aware about such guidelines at the relevant time of opening of account and during deposits made by the complainant. If that be so than how can a subscriber (complainant herein) be expected to know the same. Opposite parties have utilised the amount deposited by the complainant in his PPF account and earned profit. So now complainant cannot be put to loss for the fault of the OPs, especially when for nearly 12 long years, complainant has deposited the amount into the account under the scheme as HUF. After receiving the amount for so long knowing that the account itself was irregular or not valid, no fault can be attributed on the part of the complainant. So apparently there has been deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and thus complainant is entitled to the prevalent rate of interest under the PPF Scheme, up to the date on which communication was made to the complainant i.e. on 27.11.2019.
Hence,
ORDERED
CC/684/2021 is allowed exparte. OPs are directed to pay the interest under the PPF Scheme to the complainant at the prevalent rate commencing from 12.03.2008 to till 27.11.2019 within 60 days from the date of communication of this order. OPs are further directed to pay litigation cost of Rs. 12,000/- within the aforesaid period of 60 days.
In default of payment, the entire sum shall carry further interest @ 7% till realisation.
