Haryana

Ambala

CC/90/2014

SURENDER GOEL - Complainant(s)

Versus

GOVT.OF INDIA MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION. - Opp.Party(s)

A.B.KAPOOR

06 Sep 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

Complaint case no.   : 90 of 2014

Date of Institution    : 21.03.2014

Date of decision       :  06.09.2017

 

Surinder Goel (HUF) PPF Account NO.310/ R/o Raja Park Mehash Nagar Ambala Cantt. 2^nd Address Kacha Bazar Ambala Cantt.

 

……. Complainants.

 

 

1.         Govt. of India Ministry of Communication Dak Bhawan Sansad Marg New Delhi,             through its Secretary.

2.         Senior Post Master G.P.O. Ambala through Senior Post Master.

 

 ….…. Respondents.

 

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.

 

Before:           SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

                        SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER

                        MS. ANAMKA GUPTA, MEMBER                      

 

Present:          Sh. A.B. Kapoor, counsel for complainant.

                        Sh. Dev Batra, counsel for Ops.

 

ORDER:

                        In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint that the complainant opened a HUF account with OP through OP NO.2  and the said PPF (HUF) account was opened long back vide account NO.310. Further submitted that on 16.10.2012 a letter was received by the complainant from OP NO.2 that as per the Govt. order i.e. OP NO.1 HUF account cannot be extended and it was instructed that complainant should close the said account and till that date complainant was not aware any letter of closing the account form OP. Further submitted that on the instructions from OP NO.2, complainant closed the account on 01.11.2012 and the amount was paid to the complainant and the Ops retained the amount with them till 01.11.2012 without intimating the closing of the said account. Further submitted that it was reveled that no interest has been paid to the complainant on his amount from 01.04.2011 to 13.03.2012 and 14.03.2012 to 16.10.2012 on the amount which remained with the OP and the complainant is entitled for the interest on the amount remains with the OP which comes to Rs.43715.38/- and Rs.29695.68/- totaling Rs.73,411.6 /-. Further submitted that the complainant had many rounds of the OP No.2 and requested them to pay the interest at least of back rate but they did not listen to the request of the complainant. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and contested the present complaint by way of filing reply. OPs in their reply submitted that public notices/notification are public documents & are issued for general public so that the public men should know regarding the latest circulars/notices/notifications & should act accordingly and he who himself his negligent & had not acted diligently has no right to claim any relief and it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner that he was not aware regarding of any such instructions. Further submitted that the department is relying upon the Govt. Instructions in this regard & on other hand the petitioner is simply relying upon the oral version of denial, which is not admissible. Further stated that nobody has right to derive illegal interest from the Government, through its scheme, which have already been terminated through circulars/notices and one cannot be allowed to claim interest from the Government on account of alleged deposits made by a negligent person, when, there was no scheme in existence to question of claiming interest does not arises at all. Further submitted that it is matter of record that as per Govt. instruction contained in Govt. of India, Ministry of Communication & IT Department of Posts, New Delhi SB order 10/2014 dated 23.06.2005 vide which it has been conveyed that only individuals can open PPF accounts and no account in the name HUF be opened from 13.05.2005. However, existing HUF, PPF accounts opened prior to 13.05.2005 would continue till maturity and can not be further extended after maturity and no further deposit can be accepted in such accounts after maturity. It further added that above instructions have been further modified to the extent that PPF (HUF) accounts opened prior to 13.05.2005, but have already been matured but not yet closed, shall be closed on 31^st March 2011 after which “No further interest shall be admissible as per instruction contained in SB order 23/2020 dated 13.12.2010”.  Hence after waiting sufficiently when the petitioner himself  did not turn to settle the account by collecting the payment as due on 31.03.2011, the letter dated 16.10.2013 was issued. So, OPs has prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

3.                     To prove his version counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant along with documents as annexure C-1 to C-4 and close their evidence. On the other hand counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit as Annexure R-X along with documents as annexure R-1 to R-9 and close the evidence on behalf of respondent.

4                      It is not disputed that the complainant had opened a HUF PPF account No.310 in the year January 1993 as per Annexure R-2 which was extended automatically & complainant has deposited the amount as shown in Annexure R-3 time to time. It is also admitted fact that total principle amount was deposited in the said account had been paid by OP to complainant upto 31.03.2011 but OP did not paid any interest on the deposited amount as agreed by OPs relying upon their instructions in Letter Dated 13.12.2010  as Annexure R-1 issued by the Assistant Director on behalf of the Ministry of communication and IT Department of the Post Office. We have perused the said instructions/amendments minutely, it is provided that Postal Authority had instructed that the PPF account opened in name of HUF prior to 13.05.2005 will be closed on maturity i.e. 31 March of the 16 financial year from the year in which account was opened. No further interest will be admissible. In the above said instruction, it is also mentioned that PPF account is opened in the name of UHF prior to 13.05.2005 but have already been matured but not yet closed, shall be closed on 31^st March 2011 after which no further interest shall be admissible. From the perusal of above said letter Annexure R-1 was issued on 13.12.2010 and same was communicated to the complainant through vide letter dated 16.10.2012 which is not disputed by the OP in his written statement. However above said letter has been placed on file at the time of arguments by the counsel for the complainant which clearly reflects that notice has been issued by the Ops on 16.10.2012. Meaning thereby alleged instruction brought to the knowledge of the complainant only on 16.10.2012 not prior to it.

                        On the other hand, counsel for Ops has argued that as per the application for opening of the account it is clearly mentioned as under:

                        I/We agree to abide by such rules framed by the Central Government as may be applicable to the account from time to time.

                        Counsel for OPs has further argued that as per the RBI Instruction Annexure R-6 as under:

                        If any, in 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 year from the end of the year in which initial subscription was made has already been completed, they shall also be closed at the end of the current year i.e. the 31^st day of March 2011 and the entire amount standing at the credit of the subscribe shall be refunded, after making adjustments, if any, in respect of any interest due from the subscriber on loans taken by him”.

                        It is a general notification which was issued by the RBI as well as Postal Department and all concerned persons including account holders are bound by the above said notification, therefore, there is no need to send individual notice to every account holder.  The counsel for the Ops has argued that as per the Rule 169 of the Post Office Saving Bank Manual, simple interest is payable on deposits, which have become due, but have not been made. However, in the interest of justice, we have already issued the notice to the complainant on 16.10.2012. It is clear that the complainant is bound by terms and conditions mentioned in Annexure R-2.  So, the OPs have rightly paid the amount to the complainant and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. Counsel for OPs has also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble in case title Post office of India and ors. Vs. Sham Lal  First Appeal No.426 of 2013.

5.                     We have perused instructions Annexure R-1 issued by Govt. of India Ministry of Communication dated 13.12.2010 which is a internal communication circulated by the Government to their concerned department wherein it has been mentioned that PPF account opened in name of HUF prior to 13.05.2005 will be closed on maturity i.e. 31 March of the 16 financial year from the year in which account was opened. No further interest will be admissible. Though, the OPs have closed the HUF account of the complainant and also released the amount along with interest on 01.11.2011 without paying interest for the same from 01.04.2011 to 01.11.2012. In this way, the OPs have enjoyed the amount lying deposited with it after 31.03.2011 till the making of payment without interest as well as Rule 169 of the Post Office Saving bank manual regarding paying the simple interest to the interest to the complainant is not applicable in this case as it is HUF account and rate of interest has already been fixed between the parties. In view of above discussion, we are of the view that the complainant has no knowledge prior to the 16.10.2012, the complainant was conveyed the instruction and directed to close the amount and accordingly, the complainant has closed the account on 01.11.2012. Hence, the complainant has suffered a great financial loss due to without paying interest. At the time of the arguments, counsel for complainant has made the following statement with regard to the interest as under:-

                        Stated that I restrict my claim by claiming delayed payment with simple interest @ 6%p.a.i.e. interest on Rs.7,66,384/- from 01.04.2011 to 31.10.2012, on Rs.70,000/- from 14.03.2012 to 31.10.2012. Thereafter on the entire calculated interest amount further 6% simple interest w.e.f. 01.11.2012 till date of actual realization and that to without any costs & penalty etc.

6.                     The OPs have not denied the detail of the amount as per statement dated 08.09.2017 of the complainant but counsel for Ops has argued that they are not liable to pay the interest as stated in the complaint. This Forum is of the view that OP has enjoyed the amount lying deposited with it after 31.03.2011 i.e. the date on which all PPF Account of HUF was closed, so they are liable to pay the interest. Statement given by the complainant is genuine one. Hence, the present complaint is allowed with no order as to costs and OPs are directed to pay interest @ 6% p.a.i.e. interest on Rs.7,66,384/- from 01.04.2011 to 31.10.2012, on Rs.70,000/- from 14.03.2012 to 31.10.2012. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs, as per rules. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced On: 08.09.2017                                                           (D.N. ARORA)                                                                                                                                          President

 

    (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                                                        Member 

 

 

            (ANAMIKA GUPTA)

                                                                                                                        Member