DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC No. 37 of 31-01-2007<br /> Decided on :13-04-2007<br /> <br /> Sunil Kumar S/o Sh. Sat Pal, R/o H. No. 5962, Mohalla Jhuttika, Heera Chowk, Bathinda. <br /> .... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1. General Manager, Post Office, Main Branch, Near District Courts, Bathinda.<br /> 2. Sub Post Master, Post Office, Sirki Bazar, Bathinda.<br /> ... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM :<br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Sh. Hira Lal Kumar, Member <br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. PP Nayyar, Advocate.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. M.R.Gupta, Advocate.<br /> <br /> O R D E R <br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT <br /> 1. This complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as `Act') has been preferred by the complainant seeking directions from this forum to the opposite parties to pay him Rs. 64,515/- as interest; Rs. 10,000/- as Bonus alongwith amount illegally deducted from the maturity amount; Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation for harassment, botheration and financial loss besides Rs. 5,500/- as cost of the complaint.<br /> 2. Version of the complainant lies in the narrow compass under :-<br /> 3. Account No. 650842 was opened with the opposite parties at Bathinda in the year 2000 with a sum of Rs. 4,02,000/-. It was being operated by him (complainant) and his father Sh. Satpal. His father had expired on 21.3.2001. After his death, he (complainant) was regularly maintaining the account. Date of maturity was 19.12.06 after which complainant became entitled to recover the full amount under the monthly income scheme alongwith agreed upto date interest. He went to the office of opposite party No. 2 and moved an application for releasing the maturity amount alongwith upto date interest. Cheque was issued on 21.12.06 for Rs. 4,70,665/- only. Amount of interest and bonus on the maturity amount were not paid without any sufficient cause and reason. Under compelled circumstances, he accepted the cheque under protest. He alleges that deductions made by the opposite parties are illegal, arbitrary, against rules and regulations. Even earlier he had filed complaint before this forum on 31.8.05. That was dismissed on the ground that civil suit was pending between the parties before the civil court. It was also the version of the opposite parties in the previous complaint that Sh. Satpal, father of the complainant has expired on 21/3/01 and as per Section 15 of the Monthly Income Scheme Account, the status of joint MIS Account of the death of one of the depositors is as under :-<br /> “If one of the depositors of a MIS Account dies, the account will be treated as a single account in the name of the surviving depositor from the date of death of the said depositor when a report to this effect is received in the post office. The PM/SPM will ask the surviving depositor to withdraw the excess amount in excess of the limit prescribed for single depositor as this amount will not carry interest from the date of death of the joint depositor. The interest already paid on this excess amount will be recovered or adjusted. The account will be converted into a single account..”<br /> 4. Section 15 of the Monthly Income Scheme Account was not brought to his notice and to the notice of his father at the time when account was opened. Hence, they were not aware about this alleged condition. Rather he was under the bonafide impression and was waiting for date of maturity. He alleges deficiency in service, mental tension, agony , harassment, humiliation and botheration at the hands of the opposite parties. It is further averred by him that civil suit was filed by his brother for permanent injunction which was dismissed on 1.9.2006. No appeal has been filed nor any other suit/appeal is pending in any other court regarding the amount in question.<br /> 5. Opposite parties filed their version taking legal objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present from and it is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. According to them, account was opened as joint-B type account by the complainant and his father Sh. Satpal. Such account could be operated by either of them/any of them or either or survivor/survivors. Sh. Satpal has expired on 21.3.2001. Complainant has no right to file the complaint in view of Section 15 of the Monthly Income Scheme Account as department has rightly paid all the dues. Complainant was withdrawing the amount of interest after the death of Sh. Satpal without intimating the death of principal depositor Sh. Satpal. Death of Sh. Satpal was reported to opposite party No. 2 on 27.9.2005 for the first time. Death was not intimated for causing loss to the department. As per rule if one person died from joint B type account, MIS account is required to be converted into single account, the limit of which is Rs. 3,00,000/-. Complainant did not disclose the death of principal depositor and withdrew interest on Rs. 4,02,000/- upto 21.8.04 wrongly. He withdrew interest amount on excess amount i.e. Rs. 1,02,000/-. Accordingly opposite party No. 2 is entitled to recover/adjust the interest which has been withdrawn on the excess amount. Complainant should have withdrawn amount of Rs. 1,02,000/- from the account immediately after the death of the principal depositor and should have applied for conversion of joint B type account in single account. Intricate questions are involved due to which case is pending before civil court. Other objections taken by them are that complaint is false; he has not come with clean hands and he is estopped from filing the complaint by his act and conduct. They admit that account was opened with an amount of Rs. 4,02,000/- and that Sh. Satpal, father of the complainant had expired on 21.3.2001. They deny that rule 15 of the MIS account was not brought to the notice of the complainant and his father. They refute the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 6. In support of his allegations contained in the complaint, complainant has produced in evidence his two affidavits (Ex. C-1 & Ex. C-2), photocopy of order dated 1.9.06 (Ex. C-3), photocopy of application dated 9.12.06 (Ex. C-4), photocopy of application dated 19.12.06 (Ex. C-5), photocopy of application dated 20.12.06 (Ex. C-6) and photocopy of order 11.5.06 (Ex. C-7).<br /> 7. In rebuttal, on behalf of the opposite parties copy of detailed calculation (Ex. R-1) and affidavit of Smt. Sarusti Devi, Sub Post Master (Ex.R-2) have been tendered in evidence. <br /> 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Apart from this, we have gone through the record and written briefs of arguments submitted on behalf of the parties.<br /> 9. Some facts become undisputed in this case. They are that A/c No. 650842 was opened with opposite party No. 2 as Joint- B type account by the complainant and his father. Such account can be operated by joint holders themselves or by any of them or either or survivor. A sum of Rs.4,02,000/- was deposited. This MIS account was to mature on 19.12.06. Father of the complainant who was the principal depositor has expired on 21.3.2001. Opposite parties had issued cheque dated 21.12.06 for a sum of Rs. 4,70,665/- which was received by the complainant under protest.<br /> 10. Arguments pressed into service by Mr. Nayyar, learned counsel for the complainant are that account was opened with an amount of Rs. 4,02,000/- which was to be operated by the complainant and his father. Father of the complainant has expired on 21.3.2001. Amount under the scheme became payable on 19.12.06. He further submitted that opposite parties paid Rs. 4,70,665/- only. Interest and Bonus on maturity have not been paid. Opposite parties illegally and arbitrarily deducted the amount out of the total sum. Rules as alleged by the opposite parties are not applicable in the case of the complainant as they were not brought to the notice of the complainant and his father. Opposite parties have illegally deducted Rs. 64,515/- and Bonus of Rs. 3,000/- which complainant is entitled to recover. In these circumstances, his submission is that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Reliance is placed by the complainant on the authority Anumati Vs. Punjab National Bank 2005 (Suppl.) Judicial Reports (Supreme Court) page 314.<br /> 11. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the opposite parties vociferously argued that account opened was Joint-B type account of the complainant and his father. His father has expired on 21.3.2001. In such a situation Section 15 of the MIS Account is applicable. Due amount has rightly been paid by the department. He further argued that complainant and his father were well aware of the rules and regulations. Rather complainant has not come with clean hands as he gave intimation of death of his father to opposite party No. 2 on 27.9.05 for the first time. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.<br /> 12. We have considered the respective arguments.<br /> 13. Material question for determination is as to whether rules, regulations, terms and conditions of Joint-B type MIS Account were brought to the notice of the complainant and his father ? Reply to our minds is in the positive. Admittedly father of the complainant who the principal depositor has expired on 21.3.2001. Account was opened in the year 2000 as is evident from the Affidavit of Smt. Sarusti Devi. Death of Sh. Satpal father of the complainant was first reported to opposite party No. 2 on 27.9.04. It means that complainant continued operating the account and continued withdrawing interest on Rs. 4,02,000/- upto 21.8.04. This could not be done by him under the rules. As per rules if one of joint account holder dies from Joint-B type account of MIS account, the account is required to be converted into single account. Limit of the single MIS account is Rs.3,00,000/-. Complainant did not disclose death of principal depositor till 27.9.04 (in the reply dated 27.9.05). He continued to withdraw the interest on Rs. 4,02,000/- which he could not do after the death of principal depositor. In this manner, he withdrew interest on the amount i.e. Rs. 1,02,000/-. Actually he could withdraw the amount of Rs. 1,02,000/- from the MIS account immediately after the death of principal depositor and could apply for conversion of Joint-B type account into single account. Since he concealed the factum of the death of Sh. Satpal, he was allowed to withdraw interest on the excess amount of Rs. 1,02,000/-. Complainant intimated the death of his father on 27.9.04 as per affidavit Ex. R-1 (27.9.05 as per reply of complaint). If complainant and his father were not aware of the rules and regulations of Joint-B type i.e. MIS account, there was no necessity for the complainant to give intimation of the death of his father to the opposite parties. Fact that he reported the death to them indicates that they were well aware of the rules, regulations, terms and conditions of this account. Even on 9.12.06, 19.12.06 and 20.12.06, complainant moved applications to opposite party No. 2, copies of which are Ex. C-4 to Ex. C-6. Hence, it does not lie in the mouth of the complainant that he is not bound by the rules and regulations of the opposite parties. After 21.3.2001 complainant was required to convert Joint-B type account into single account, the limit of which is Rs.3,00,000/- by way of intimating the death of his father. He could not withdraw the interest on the amount beyond Rs. 3,00,000/-. To the contrary, he continued withdrawing the interest on the excess amount i.e. Rs. 1,02,000/- which opposite parties were entitled to recover/adjust. Ex. R-1 is the detailed calculation. Learned counsel for the complainant could not show that the calculations are not as per Joint-B type MIS Account. Ex. R-1 does not stand rebutted in any manner. Amount payable was Rs. 4,70,665/- after making deductions of the amount paid in excess. Admittedly it has been paid. Hence, it cannot be concluded that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties particularly when the opposite parties have acted in accordance with the rules and regulations concerning the account opened by the complainant and his father.<br /> 14. In the result, complaint is meritless and the same is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.<br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to record room.<br /> Pronounced :<br /> 13-04-2007 (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President <br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar )<br /> Member<br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />