0. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA(PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> C.C.No.109 of 26.4.2007<br /> Decided on : 11.7.2007 <br /> <br /> Anguri Devi W/o Sh. Sham Lal Aggarwal, R/o House No. 20965, Street No. 2, Power House Road, Bathinda, Tehsil & District Bathinda. <br /> ...... Complainant<br /> <br /> Versus. <br /> <br /> 1. Dy. Post Master, Head Post Office, Bathinda.<br /> 2. Post Master, Head Post Office, Bathinda.<br /> 3. The Post Master General, Punjab, Sector 17, Chandigarh.<br /> ...... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986<br /> <br /> QUORUM:<br /> <br /> Sh.Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Sh. Hira Lal Kumar, Member<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the complainants : Sh. Vinod Goyal, Advocate<br /> For the opposite parties : Sh. M.R. Gupta, Advocate<br /> <br /> O R D E R.<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT:- <br /> 14. Account No. 211445 was got opened by the complainant on 9.11.2005 with opposite parties No. 1 & 2 by way of depositing a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- under the Senior Citizens Saving Scheme. Second account No. 211455 with an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- was got opened by her on 28.11.2005. When the second account was opened she had disclosed her previous account No. 211445. Letter was issued by opposite party No. 2 to her that both the accounts have been opened in the same name, in the same post office and during the same calender month and that later one is irregular. It was further intimated that deposit in account No. 211455 has been treated as irregular and that she should close this account after deduction of interest already paid. They (opposite parties No. 1 & 2) stopped releasing the quarterly interest on the amount deposited in account No. 211455. Her plea is that she is not at fault as she did not conceal any material fact from the opposite parties at the time of opening the accounts. She has received the interest concerning account No. 211445 upto 31.3.2007 and regarding A/c No. 211455 upto 31.12.2006. Thereafter, opposite parties have stopped paying the interest on the amount lying in deposit in account No. 211455. She claims that she is entitled to receive the interest/arrears of interest in both the accounts as per rates fixed by opposite parties. They have no right to stop the interest. She avers that amount of interest is payable to her alongwith interest @ 24% P.A from due date till realization. Her service benefits after retirement have been deposited by her and she is fully dependent on the income of interest for earning livelihood. Opposite parties under the garb of notice No. RL-3153 dated 17.3.2007 are trying to deduct the interest on account of which she would undergo financial loss. She would not be able to get treatment as she is patient of cancer. In these circumstances, opposite parties are deficient in rendering service and have indulged in unfair trade practice. Accordingly, this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as the Act) has been preferred by her seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to continue account No. 211455; pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation; interest on the amount of interest @ 24% P.A and Rs. 3,000/- as costs.<br /> 15. On being put to notice, opposite parties filed their version taking legal objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form; intricate questions are involved which can be decided by the civil court; complaint is false and frivolous; complainant has not come with clean hands; she has concealed material facts from this Forum and she is estopped from filing the complaint by her act and conduct. They admit that account No. 211445 was got opened by her with opposite party No.2 under Senior Citizens Savings Scheme on 8/9.11.2005 with Rs. 5,00,000/- only. Similarly, another account No. 211455 was got opened by her with opposite party No.2 through SAS agent Deepshikha 469531 for Rs. 2,50,000/- on 25/28.11.2005 in the same calendar month. At the time of opening the account, all the terms and conditions including the condition that nobody can open the second account under this scheme in the same calendar month was disclosed by the agent and by opposite party No.2. Second account was opened due to oversight and heavy rush of work. At the time of audit for the period 26.2.2007 to 17.3.2007 it had transpired that both the accounts have been opened in the same name, in the same post office and during the same calendar month and as such account is irregular. Recovery of interest already paid to the tune of Rs. 24,750/- concerning account No. 211455 was ordered as irregular account can bear no interest. Registered notice dated 15.3.2007 was issued to the complainant for getting account No. 211455 closed after deduction of interest already paid. Their allegation is that despite understanding all the terms and conditions, she had opened the second account. Interest has been paid upto 31.12.2006 for both the accounts. They deny deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 16. In support of her allegations, complainant has tendered into evidence her own affidavit (Ex.C.1), photocopy of letter dated 15.3.2007 (Ex.C.2), photocopy of application form for opening an account under Senior Citizens Scheme (Ex.C.3) & photocopies of Pass Books concerning A/c Nos. 211455 and 211445 (Ex.C.4 & Ex.C.5) respectively. <br /> 17. On behalf of the opposite parties, reliance is placed on affidavit (Ex.R.1) of Sh. Balwinder Kaur, Post Master, photocopies of letters dated 21.5.2007 & 8.6.2007 (Ex.R.2 & Ex.R.3), photocopy of audit memo dated 27.2.2007 (Ex.R.4) and photocopies of pages No. 492 to 493 of Senior Citizen Saving Scheme Rules (Ex.R.5). <br /> 18. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Apart from this, we have considered written arguments submitted by the parties. <br /> 19. Some are the admitted facts in this case. They are that complainant got two accounts i.e. A/c No. 211445 with Rs.5,00,000/- and A/c No. 211455 with Rs.2,50,000/- opened on 9.11.2005 and 28.11.2005 respectively with opposite parties No. 1 & 2 under Senior Citizens Saving Scheme. Copies of the Pass Books are Ex.C.5 & Ex.C.4 respectively. Both the accounts were opened by the complainant in her name, in the same post office and during the same calendar month. There was an audit of the post office. Copy of the audit memo No. 13 dated 27.2.2007 is Ex.R.4. On its basis, letter dated 15.3.2007 was issued by the Dy. Post Master, Bathinda to the complainant intimating that during audit inspection of his office, it has been noticed that A/c Nos. 211445 and 211455 have been opened in the same name, in the same post office and during a calendar month and as such, it is irregular. It was further intimated that deposit in A/c No. 211455 has been treated as irregular and she should close A/c No. 211455 after deduction of interest already paid in this account. <br /> 20. Arguments pressed into service by Mr. Gupta learned counsel for the opposite parties are that nobody can open second account under the Senior Citizen Saving Scheme in the same calendar month and in the same post office. This fact was disclosed to the complainant by the agent Deepshikha 469531. Despite this, she opened two accounts in the same calendar month in the same post office. In the application form itself, it has been mentioned in para 2( i ) that “applicant has clearly understood the Senior Citizens Saving Scheme Rules, 2004 governing the accounts under the said scheme, as amended from time to time (Here-in-after referred to as the Rules) “ and in para No. ( ii ) “ I/ We shall abide by the said rules in letter and spirit” and in para No. ( iv ) “I/We adhere to the ceiling on deposits, taking the deposits in all the accounts opened by me/us together, as specified, in rule 4 and amended from time to time. In case, at any time, any excess deposit is found, such excess deposit will be refunded to me/us after recovery of excess interest under sub-rule (80 of rule 7)”. His next submission is that audit office had ordered recovery of interest i.e. Rs.24,750/- already paid concerning account No. 211455 being irregular as irregular account bears no interest. Accordingly, letter dated 15.3.2007 was issued to the complainant to get her A/c No. 211455 closed after deduction of interest already paid in this account. Despite understanding all the terms and conditions, complainant had intentionally opened second account.<br /> 21. Learned counsel for the complainant contended that complainant has no concern with SSA agent Deepshikha. From the record, it stands established that there is no fault on the part of the complainant. To the contrary, there is gross negligence on the part of the opposite parties. Nothing was concealed by the complainant from the opposite parties. <br /> 22. We have considered the respective arguments. Second account was opened on 28.11.2005. For getting second account opened she filled in columns of the Account Opening Form under Senior Citizens Saving Scheme in which she made disclosure about her earlier A/c No. 211445 dated 9.11.2005 for Rs.5,00,000/- as is evident from Ex.C.3. Opposite parties in their reply of the complaint state that at the time of opening the account all the terms and conditions including the condition that nobody can open second account under Senior Citizens Saving Scheme in the same calendar month in the same post office were disclosed to the complainant by SAS agent Deepshikha 469531. This has also been stated by Smt. Balwinder Kaur, Post Master in her affidavit Ex.R.1. Opposite parties have failed to examine Deepshikha. To the contrary, they admit that second account was opened due to oversight which had occurred due to heavy rush of work. In other words, the pleas of the opposite parties on this aspect of the matter are contradictory. In support of her version complainant has proved her affidavit ExC.1 in which she has reiterated averments in the complaint. Evidence does not establish that terms and conditions and rules of the scheme were explained to the complainant. She approached the opposite parties with clean hands. She went to the extent of disclosing her previous A/c No. 211445 dated 9.11.2005. Irregularity in opening the second account cannot be attributed to her, particularly when opposite parties admit that second account was opened due to oversight which had occurred due to heavy rush of work. Opposite parties have stopped releasing the interest concerning deposit in A/c No. 211455 on the ground that it is irregular. They cannot do so. Irregular accounts opened may be violative of the relevant rules, but they are not illegal. Complainant cannot be deprived of the benefits of the scheme of this account as the amount is being used to her detriment. In this view of the matter, we get support from the observations of Hon'ble State Commission of Punjab in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Radha Swami Satsang, Beas (Regd. Society)-1992(2)CLT-127 which is applicable to the case in hand on all the fours. Accordingly, opposite parties cannot deduct interest already paid from A/c No. 211455. Similarly, their act in not releasing quarterly interest after 31.12.2006 regarding this account is not justifiable. In these circumstances, there is deficiency in rendering service on their part. <br /> 23. Now question arises as to which relief should be accorded to the complainant. She claims that direction be given to the opposite parties to continue A/c No. 211455. Admittedly, this account has been made regular by the opposite parties vide letter No. SB/43-18/07 dated 10.7.2007 of Accounts Officer (SB), Punjab Region, Chandigarh to the address of Superintendent Post Offices, Bathinda Division, Bathinda. Hence, the relief to this extent has already been given by the opposite parties. AS per Senior Citizens Saving Scheme 2004, quarterly interest is payable. Opposite parties have not released the interest on the amount of the complainant concerning A/c No. 211455 for the quarters ending on 31.3.2007 & 30.6.2007. Direction deserves to be given to them to pay the amount of interest for these quarters alongwith interest @ 9% P.A from the dates it became due till payment. Complainant is craving for compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of mental tension and physical harassment. There is no case to allow it in view of the relief which is going to be accorded as above. Out of interest and compensation, one can be allowed.<br /> 24. No other point was urged before us at the time of arguments.<br /> 25. In the result, complaint is, accordingly, allowed against the opposite parties with costs of Rs.1,000/-. Opposite parties are directed to do as under :-<br /> ( i ) Pay interest on the amount concerning A/c No. 211455 for the quarters ending on 31.3.2007 and 30.6.2007 alongwith interest @ 9% P.A from the dates it became due till payment.<br /> ( ii ) Compliance within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br /> 26. Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be also consigned. <br /> <br /> Pronounced (Lakhbir Singh)<br /> 11.7.2007 President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet) (Hira Lal Kumar)<br /> Member Member<br /> 'bsg'<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />