Hyderabad.

Between-

Sri E.Koteswara Rao,S/o. late Sri E.Murthy,

Aged about 73 years,

Occ- Retired Employee,

R/o.Flat No.103/A, 1^st Block, Jana Priya Township,

Mallapur, Hyderabad – 76.

…Appellant/Complainant.

And

1.The Head Post Master,

   Kachiguda Station Post Office,

   Kachiguda, Hyderabad – 27.

2.The Sr.Superintendent of Posts,

   South East Division,

   Hyderabad.

3.The Chief Post Master General,

   General Post Office, Abids, Hyderbad.

4.The Director General of Postal Department,

   New Delhi.

…Respondents/Opp.Parties.

Counsel  for the appellant                        -  Mr.Mohd.Muzafar Ullah Khan.

Counsel for the Respondents                   -   Mr.V.Vinod Kumar.                                                                           

QUORUM-THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT,

AND

SMT.M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE LADY MEMBER,

MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY,

TWO THOUSAND EIGHT.

Oral Order (Per Hon’ble Mr.Justice D.Appa Rao, President)

-------

1.         The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant.  He filed this appeal against the order of dismissal of his complaint filed to recover interest, that was unjustly recovered from his saving accounts.

2.         The case of the complainant in brief is that the he is a senior citizen.  He saved some of his salary savings and invested in the monthly income scheme floated by the opposite parties, the Postal Department, in his name as well as in the joint names of his daughter and son.  The opposite parties were paying interest regularly upto January, 1998.  Surprisingly, they stopped paying interest from February, 1998.  When he complained, the opposite parties stated that the account has been regularized, as the amounts in the said account were exceeding the limits.  Thereupon, he sought conversion of the accounts by adding the name of his son against account No.150026 and adding the name of his daughter against account No.150027.  Later, interest was paid on these converted accounts, but an amount of Rs.22,855/- was deducted alleging that he exceeded the maximum limit.  As per the conditions of the monthly income scheme 1987, one should not exceed Rs.2.00 lakhs in a single account and Rs.4.00 lakhs in a joint account.  His accounts were never exceeded as required under the said rule.  Since an amount of Rs.22,855/- was illegally detained, he is entitled to its refund , and therefore, he prayed that this amount be returned with interest and costs.

3.         The opposite parties resisted the complaint.  While admitting that the complainant had invested the amounts, it alleged that the limit of deposit was only Rs.2.04 lakhs.  However, the total deposit amount was Rs.2,80,000/-as detailed below.-

Since he was holding excess amount than permissible amount, he was not entitled to interest for the period from 15.02.1996 to 20.07.1998. However, he was paid an amount of Rs.22,855/- towards interest.  He was holding an excess amount of Rs.76,000/- beyond the prescribed limit for a period of 30 months from 2/96 to 7/98 contrary to the rules.  Therefore, they recovered the excess amount of Rs.22,855/-, which was paid to him in excess, while closing account No.150025 on 16.10.2001.  Therefore, there was no deficiency of service.  They prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.         The complainant has filed his affidavit and documents Exs.A.1 to A.17.  The opposite parties filed Exs.B.1 and B.2. 

5.         The District Forum after considering the documentary evidence placed on record, opined that the opposite parties had paid an excess amount of Rs.22,855/- which they have recovered.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.  Accordingly, the complaint was dismissed without costs.

         Aggrieved by the said decision, the complainant preferred this appeal contending that the District Forum did not appreciate the facts in correct perspective.  It ought to have seen that the deposit amount of single individual in his individual capacity shall not exceed Rs.2,04 lakhs.  However, in the joint capacity it could exceed Rs.4.00 lakhs.  They did not raise any objection at the time of depositing the amount nor subsequently thereafter.  The interest was paid to him till February,1996.  It had failed to note that the revised index card concerning A/c.No.150026 standing in the names of complainant and E.V. Jagadeesh was converted in the names of E.V.Jagadeesh and G.Mohana Bai and account No.150027 standing in the names of E.Koteswara Rao and G.Mohana Bai was converted in the name of G.Mohana Bai alone and the said conversion was made as per the instructions of opposite party No.2, as per Ex.A.2 and the same was accepted by the Post Master, Kachiguda, Hyderabad.  It had failed to note that after conversion of accounts, interest was paid in the new account, and therefore, deduction on the ground of holding excess amount without giving proper explanation is bad under law.  Therefore, he prayed that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties, and he is entitled to the amount claimed. 

7.         The point that arises for consideration is what is the limit in regard to these deposits and whether the respondents had recovered the amount illegally paid towards interest .

8.         It is an undisputed fact that the complainant had opened two accounts i.e. 150024 and 150025 in his own name, while he opened two more accounts 150026 and 150027 in the joint names of himself and his son and his daughter respectively.   An amount of Rs.22,855/- was recovered on the ground that the deposits had exceeded the limit as stipulated in the monthly income scheme 1987. 

9.         Evidently, the monthly income scheme was introduced with effect from 15.08.1987.    Rule 158 of the above said Scheme stipulates-

(i)                                         The provisions of Post Offices S.B.General Rules, 1981 and the Post Office Savings Account Rules, 1981 will be applicable to the Monthly Income Scheme for which no provisions have been made in these rules.

(ii)                                       The account may be opened by an individual.  The depositor may open more than one account subject to the condition that deposit in all accounts taken together shall not exceed Rs.2 lakhs in single account and Rs.4 lakhs in joint account.

(iii)                                     There shall be only one deposit in the account of Rs.5000/- of multiple thereof.

(iv)                                      No withdrawal will be permitted in the account before the expiry of a period of 6 years from the date of opening of an account.

(v)                                        Premature closure of the account is permitted any time after expiry of one year from the date of opening of account on deduction of an amount equal to 5 percent of the deposit.  Thus Rs.9500/- will be refunded against a deposit of Rs.10,000 in the event of such a premature closure.

(vi)                                      The deposit will bear interest at the rate of 12 percent p.a. which shall be payable monthly to the depositor on completion of a month from the date of deposit.  If the interest payable every month is not drawn by the depositor such interest will not earn any additional interest.

The amounts which we have mentioned above show that two accounts were opened in the name of the complainant and the amount is Rs.1,60,000/-. The other two accounts are in the joint names each Rs.1,20,000/-.  From this it can be said that he deposited an amount of Rs.1,60,000/- in his individual name and Rs.2,40,000/- in joint names.  In other words, a depositor can deposit amount in his name in all accounts not more than Rs.2 lakhs, and he can also invest Rs.4,00,000/- along with others. The interpretation that was given by the Postal authorities is that the share of the individual depositor in all the accounts should not exceed Rs.2,00,000/-.  It may be stated herein that nowhere in the rule there was mention that the share of an individual depositor in all accounts should be added up to see whether the total exceeds Rs.2,00,000/-.  If really the intention was such, the rule would have been otherwise.  It would specifically say that the total amount of the individual, in the individual and joint accounts of a single depositor, should not exceed Rs.2,00,000/-.  If the rule as interpreted by the 1^st respondent is correct, there is no necessity for mentioning Rs.4 lakhs in joint account. Evidently, against the first two deposits, the claimant had deposited Rs.1,60,000/- and in 1996 he had deposited Rs.2,40,000/- in joint names.  In fact, when it was deposited in the Pot Office at Jalahalli, the Post Office did not object it.  Only when the claimant transferred his accounts to Nacharam Post Office under Kachiguda Head Post Office, Hyderabad, the postal authorities at Hyderabad had made this sort of interpretation.  Exfacie this interpretation is contrary to the rules framed under the Scheme. 

10.       They cannot add up the amounts found in the names of each individual as well as the amount deposited along with the joint holders, and then say that he has exceeded Rs.2.00 lakhs.  This is, undoubtedly, not warranted.  Having taken deposits and having paid interest all through, suddenly they cannot recover the same on the ground that they have paid excess amount towards interest.  At no time, he exceeded the limit prescribed as per the instructions.  When the postal authorities had permitted to open “more than one account” it is upto the individual to open as many accounts as possible.  What all the restriction that was placed was that the amounts taken together in more than one account shall not exceed Rs.2 lakhs in single account and Rs.4 lakhs in joint account. This rule was never floated by him.  At no time, the postal authorities had informed the complainant that they had paid an excess amount towards interest, and they were entitled to recover the same from his account.  They cannot do it unilaterally.  This action on the part of opposite parties was highly irregular which undoubtedly caused loss to the complainant.  Therefore, he was entitled to the amount of Rs.22,855/-, which has been illegally deducted from his account.  Obviously, as the limit on his deposit was becoming more than the stipulated amount, he converted MIS A/c.No.150026, standing in the joint account of himself and his son E.V. Jagadeesh, in the names of E.V.Jagadeesh and G.Mohana Bai, and MIS A/c.No.150027, standing in the joint account of himself and his daughter G.Mohana Bai, was converted into single account in the name of G. Mohana Bai.  When the respondents had permitted such a conversion, they cannot turn round and say that the complainant had exceeded the limits.  This recovery of Rs.22,855/- is illegal, which undoubtedly amounts to deficiency of service.     

11.       He was a retired employee of  Bharat Electronics Limited, Bangalore and he deposited these amounts in order to gain some interest.  By adopting a queer mathematical calculation, the postal authorities denied the interest that was due to him.   He opened these accounts as there was no pension scheme in the company as alleged by him in his letter Ex.P.15.  We found that there was no justification to recover Rs.22,855/- by giving a new interpretation to the rules.  Since the postal department was paying interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum, necessarily they have to pay the interest over this amount from the date of illegal deduction till the date of payment.  He is also entitled to costs computed at Rs.1,000/- in the C.D. and Rs.1,000/- in this appeal altogether Rs.2,000/-.  Since he was denied this amount for all these years and unnecessarily driven him to the Court causing mental agony, we feel that an amount of Rs.5,000/- would be reasonable and modest towards compensation. 

        In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of the District Forum is set aside.  Consequently, the C.D is allowed granting Rs.22,855/- with interest at 12 percent per annum from February, 1996, the month of deduction, till the date of realization, besides compensation of Rs.5,000/- and costs of Rs.2,000/-.  These amounts shall be paid to the appellant/complainant by the respondents/opposite parties within a period of six weeks from the date of this order.

             PRESIDENT               LADY MEMBER

Dt-25.02.2008.

Vvr.