Haryana

Panchkula

CC/124/2015

COL.JAGDISH SINGH. - Complainant(s)

Versus

GOVT.OF INDIA,DEPARTMENT OF POSTS. - Opp.Party(s)

VIKRAM SINGH.

06 Jan 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PANCHKULA.

 

                  

Consumer Complaint No	:	124 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	07.07.2015
Date of Decision	:	06.01.2016

 

 

1.Col. Jagdish Singh Sura (Retd.) s/o Sh.Dalip Singh Sura resident of House No.5030/3, Modern Housing Complex, Manimajra, Chandigarh.

2.Amritesh Singh s/o Col.Sh.Dalip Singh Sura resident of House No.5030/3, Modern Housing Complex, Manimajra, Chandigarh

 

                                                                                      ….Complainants.

Versus

 

1.Govt.of India, Ministry of Communication and IT, Department of Posts, through the Superintendent of Post Offices, Ambala Division, Ambala-133001.

2.Sub Post Master, Department of Posts, General Post Officer, Sector 8 Panchkula-134109.

                                                                                      ….Opposite Parties

 

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

              Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

              Mr.S.P.Attri, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Mr.Vikram Singh, Advocate for complainants.   

Ms.Veena Bhutani, Adv., for the Ops.

 

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

 

1.                          The complainants have filed this complaint against the Ops with the averments that a lady agent at OP No.2 had advised them to invest in SCSS (Senior Citizen Saving Scheme) and Monthly Income Scheme (MIS) being beneficial schemes floated by the Department of Post Office. On her advice the complainants opened account under SCSS and MIS Scheme by investing Rs.5,40,000/- and Rs.6,60,000/- on 26.06.2010 and 25.06.2010 respectively. The Ops started paying interest on monthly basis.   It is further averred that complainant No.1 is having a visually handicapped brother namely Bikramjit Singh Sura who was totally dependent on him for living and medical care and he also invested a sum of Rs.7,02,000/- on 19.05.2011 in MIS to meet out the day to day expenses for his livelihood. The complainant No.2 also invested a sum of Rs.4,02,000/- on 19.05.2011. The Ops accepted the invested amount under the MIS without disclosing the financial limit whereas there was no limit for SCSS Scheme. Had the Ops disclosed about the upper limit in MIS scheme then the complainants might have invested the amount in SCSS Scheme. The complainant No.1 after retirement had joined duty at Gurdaspur and had requested for transfer of his accounts but it was informed to him that there are certain financial caps in MIS and same is inadmissible. There is deficiency in service on the part of Ops because if there was financial limit/cap in MIS scheme then why OP No.2 had accepted the amount under said scheme. On the basis of financial investment limit the complainant No.1 & 2  requested for the termination of MIS account No.33048 of Rs.6,60,000/- as they have been mislead at the time of opening the account.  The OP No.2 had issued cheque amounting to Rs.6,53,400/- in the month of  January 2014 after deducting the excess interest w.e.f. 22.07.2013 without disclosing the same to the complainants.  It has been further averred that interest has not been paid to the complainants till date. On the basis of request letter, the OP No.1 informed the complainant No.1 about the adjustment/deduction of excess interest vide letter dated 20.11.2014  that once the payment is made after adjustment of interest then no further action is required. OP No.2 had sent a letter dated 13.01.2015 to the complainants regarding recovery of excess amount to the tune of Rs.16720/- from complainant No.1 and Rs.21140/- from complainant No.2 despite the fact that it was unjustified. Due to the act and conduct of the Ops the complainants have suffered mental agony and harassment as they had failed to disclose the clear facts to them and failure on the part of Ops in insuring the proper services amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiencies in service. The Ops cannot be benefited from their own wrongs and there is no occasion for them to effect any recovery from the complainants. In evidence the complainants have tendered affidavit and documents Annexure CA, Annexure C1 to Annexure C4.

2.                                   On notice the Ops appeared and filed their joint reply wherein it has been submitted that the complaint is not maintainable and the complainants have not come to this Forum with clean hands. It has been further submitted that the complainants deposited Rs.7,02,000/- with OP No.2 by opening MIS Joint account alongwith his brother malafidely by concealing the fact of his previous  accounts with OP No.2 under MIS Scheme. The Ops did not deduct the excess interest paid on amount of Rs.7,02,000/- although his limit of depositing amount had exceeded.  The complainant No.l just to evade his liability to refund the excess amount of interest has filed this frivolous complaint.  The complainants have put their signatures on the terms and conditions of Monthly Income Scheme. Even the complainants themselves have written on their applications for opening an account that “Limit does not exceeds Rs.4,50,000/-” . The complainants were aware of the maximum limit of Monthly Income Scheme and the complainants were properly guided about the rule 159 of Post Office savings bank manual, Volume I which says that “As per rule 4 of MIS rules the depositor(s) may operate more than one account subject to the condition that deposits in all accounts taken together shall not exceed Rs.4.5 lakhs in single account and Rs.9 lakhs in joint accounts from 01.08.2007. For the purpose of maximum balance, the depositor’s share in the balance of joint account shall be taken as one half or one third of such balance accordingly as the account is held by two adults or three adults”. Moreover, rule 4 of MIS Rules further clarifies the scheme  by giving example which is mentioned in Rule 159 of Post Office Saving Bank Manual.  The complainants had opened account No.33048 on 25.06.2010 for Rs.6,60,000/-. The complainant No.2 opened account No.34605 on 19.05.2011 under MIS and deposited Rs.4,02,000/-. The complainant No.1 opened another account No.34606 on 19.05.2011 by depositing an amount of Rs.7,02,000/- which was opened with his brother jointly but he alone deposited the entire amount in the said account as is reflected from the complaint.  The complainants kept on receiving the interest amount on   monthly basis. However, the complainants received excess interest from the Ops as they had deposited the amount in excess than prescribed under the rules.  The complainants were very well informed about the financial investment limit.  The case of the complainants regarding transfer of accounts to Gurdaspur Post Office was sent to Post Office, Ambala i.e. The Main Head office. The OP No.1 started the process for transfer of accounts but the post office, Gurdaspur City where all transactions are online had informed the OP No.1 regarding the excess amount deposited by complainants in different accounts therefore post office Gurdaspur City had returned the documents with remarks that the accounts exceed the limit of Rs.4,50,000/-. The transaction in Post Office-Sector 8 is not online, hence when the entry of one amount is made then the system does not disclose the previous accounts and amounts in previous accounts.  The OP No.2 has authority to deduct the interest paid in excess on the amount deposited in the account then the prescribed limit. It is worthwhile to mention here that the Ops had paid the interest to the complainants @ 4 % (SB Interest) on the amount deposited in excess than the prescribed limit and deducted the excess paid interest @ 8 % on the amount deposited in excess by the complainants than the prescribed limit.  The complainants are liable to refund the interest received by them on the deposited amount and even the details regarding this had also been given to the complainant No.1 vide letter dated 20.11.2014.  Moreover, vide letter dated 13.01.2015 full details of recovery of excess interest was also clarified.  There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Ops. Other pleas of the complainants were controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence, the Ops have tendered affidavit and documents Annexure RA, Annexure R1 to Annexure R13.

3.                Heard. The counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments made in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas the counsel for Ops reiterated the averments made in the written statement and prayed for its dismissal.

4.                                   Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainants had opened account under SCSS and MIS Scheme by investing Rs.5,40,000/- and Rs.6,60,000/- on 26.06.2010 and 25.06.2010 with the Ops besides investing Rs.7,02,000/- on 19.05.2011 in MIS to meet out the day to day expenses for the livelihood of one Bikramjit Singh, handicapped brother of the complainant No.1 and Rs.4,02,000/- on 19.05.2011 by complainant No.2. It has been further argued that the Ops accepted the invested amount under the MIS without disclosing the financial limit whereas there was no limit for SCSS Scheme. Had the Ops disclosed about the upper limit in MIS scheme then the complainants might have invested the amount in SCSS Scheme.  Further, it has been argued that the complainant No.1 after retirement had joined duty at Gurdaspur and requested for transfer of his accounts but it was informed to him that there are certain financial caps in MIS and same is inadmissible. There is deficiency in service on the part of Ops because if there was financial limit/cap in MIS scheme then why OP No.2 had accepted the amount under said scheme and on the basis of financial investment limit the complainant No.1 & 2 requested for the termination of MIS account No.33048 of Rs.6,60,000/- as they have been mislead at the time of opening the account.  The OP No.2 had issued cheque amounting to Rs.6,53,400/- in the month of  January 2014 after deducting the excess interest w.e.f. 22.07.2013 without disclosing the same to the complainants.  The Ops have not paid the interest till date despite the fact that there was no fault on behalf of the complainants. It has been further argued that the OP No.1 informed the complainant No.1 about the adjustment/deduction of excess interest vide letter dated 20.11.2014 that once the payment is made after adjustment of interest then no further action is required. OP No.2 had sent a letter dated 13.01.2015 to the complainants regarding recovery of excess amount to the tune of Rs.16720/- from complainant No.1 and Rs.21140/- from complainant No.2 despite the fact that it was unjustified.

5.                                   On the other hand, learned counsel for the Ops has argued that complainants have filed the present complaint by concealing the material facts from this Forum. The Ops have not deducted the excess interest paid on amount of Rs.7,02,000/- although limit of depositing amount was exceeded. The complainant No.l just to evade his liability to refund the excess amount of interest has filed this frivolous complaint. It has been further  that the complainants have put their signatures on the terms and conditions of Monthly Income Scheme and even they themselves have written on their applications for opening an account that “Limit does not exceeds Rs.4,50,000/-” . The complainants were aware about the maximum limit of Monthly Income Scheme and the complainants were properly guided about the rule 159 of Post Office savings bank manual, Volume I. It has been further argued that rule 4 of MIS Rules further clarifies the scheme  by giving example which is mentioned in Rule 159 of Post Office Saving Bank Manual.The complainants had opened account No.33048 on 25.06.2010 for Rs.6,60,000/-. The complainants kept on receiving the interest amount on   monthly basis but the complainants had received excess interest as they had deposited the amount in excess as prescribed under the rules.  The complainants were very well informed about the financial investment limit.  The case of the complainants regarding transfer of accounts to Gurdaspur Post Office was sent to Post Office, Amabala i.e. The Main Head office. The OP No.1 started the process for transfer of accounts but the post office, Gurdaspur City where all transactions are online had informed the OP No.1 regarding the excess amount deposited by complainants in different accounts therefore post office Gurdaspur City had returned the documents with remarks that the accounts exceed the limit of Rs.4,50,000/-. The transaction in Post Office-Sector 8 is not online, hence when the entry of one amount is made then the system does not disclose the previous accounts and amounts in previous accounts.  The OP No.2 has authority to deduct the interest paid in excess on the amount deposited in the account then the prescribed limit. Further, the Ops had paid the interest to the complainants @ 4 % (SB Interest) on the amount deposited in excess than the prescribed limit and deduced the excess paid interest @ 8 % on the amount deposited in excess by the complainants than the prescribed limit, therefore, the complainants are liable to refund the interest received by them on the deposited amount and even the details regarding this had also been given to the complainant No.1 vide letter dated 20.11.2014 and vide letter dated 13.01.2015 also full details of recovery of excess interest was also clarified. 

6.                                   The fact regarding depositing of amount by the complainants in the MIS and SCSS schemes is not disputed. The Ops have come with the plea that the complainants were very well aware of the fact regarding financial limit and the agent had guided them at the time of investing the amount and this fact has been mentioned in para No.2 of the reply on merits. We are not in agreement with the plea taken by the Ops because they have not disclosed the name of the agent who guided the complainants at the time of investing the money in above stated schemes. The Ops have even not bothered to bring her/him in the witness box to depose that the complainants were given full and correct information about the terms and conditions of the scheme including the financial limit and explained the scheme.  The Ops have taken another plea that the complainants themselves have written  that “Limit does not exceeds Rs.4,50,000/-“ at the time of investing in MIS scheme but they have not led any evidence as to who had written these words in Annexure R7 because after opening the account the account opening form remains in the post office. The Ops have stressed that the fact regarding excess depositing of the amount was brought to their knowledge by the post office of Gurdaspur City when the complainant No.1 requested for transfer of his account. It is quite strange that the Ops had opened the account and accepted the amount deposited by the complainants and kept on disbursing the interest thereof to the complainants till the knowledge of excess depositing. It appears neither the Ops nor the agent who had taken the business to the Ops were aware of the terms and conditions of the above said scheme, how they have guided the complainants at the time of investing the amount. From a financial institution such type of lapse is not expected, therefore, at this time the Ops cannot taken the shelter of Section 159 of Post Office savings bank manual, Volume I and Rule 4.   As per rule No.168 (7) of POSB Manual Volume- 1, if a depositor has made an excess investment beyond the prescribed limit under the post office Monthly Income Account Scheme, the excess deposit beyond the prescribed limit will be refunded to the investor (s) by the concerned postmaster with POSB rate of interest  as and when matter came into light. Interest already paid on excess amount will be recovered/adjusted from the refunded amount and commission if any paid to the SAS agent on excess amount will also be recovered from concerned agent. The Ops have failed to bring on record that what amount has been recovered from the agent which was received by him/her in the shape of commission. The complainant No.1 has written letter dated 22.10.2014 and asked about the adjustment/deduction and recovery of amount. Though the Ops have written letter dated 13.01.2015 to the complainants and provide the details of adjustment/deduction and recovery of amount but it appears that this letter has been written to fill the lacuna and to cover the wrongs done on behalf of the Ops. The Ops have taken the matter in causal manner and failed to redress the grievance of the complainants, hence the present complaint deserves acceptance and the same is allowed. The letter dated 13.01.2015 issued by the Ops to the complainant showing proposed recovery from them is declared null and void and has been set aside.  The Ops are further directed to release the withheld interest to the complainant as per MIS scheme and also to refund the amount already recovered from the complainants. The Ops are directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony and Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation. Let, the order be complied with within 30 days of receipt of copy of order. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 

Announced

06.01.2016       S.P.ATTRI          ANITA KAPOOR        DHARAM PAL

                           MEMBER         MEMBER                     PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

         

                                 

                                                         DHARAM PAL

                                                          PRESIDENT