DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SRI MUKTSAR SAHIB-152026 (PUNJAB).

C. C. No.07 of 2016

Instituted On: 19.01.2016

Decided On: 18.11.2016

Mukesh Bansal (HUF) son of Tarsem Bansal C/o Usha Bansal Nursing Home, Kotkapura Road, Sri Muktsar Sahib.

.......... Complainant.

Versus

1. Head Postmaster, Indian Post Office, Head Office at Sector-17, Opp.Reserve Bank of India, Chandigarh.

2. Head Postmaster, Post Office Faridkot, District Faridkot-151203

3. The Post Master, M.D.G. Sri Muktsar Sahib, Tehsil & District Sri Muktsar Sahib.

..........Opposite Parties.

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as amended up to date.

Quorum: Sh. Karnail Singh Ahhi, President.

Smt. Mandeep Kaur, Member.

Present: Sh.Sanjeev Gupta Advocate for Complainant.

Sh.Vikramjit Singh and RS Aulakh Advocates for OPs.

ORDER

KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

1. Complainant has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties to pay Rs.9,16,383/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum on PPF account No.830701 maintained with OP No.3; to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of mental tension, harassment and agony suffered by the complainant due to act and conduct of the OPs.; to pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

2. Brief facts made out from the complaint are that in the year 2007, the OPs launched a scheme of opening PPF account under HUF status. From the allurement of the above said policy of OPs, the complainant opened 15 years PPF account bearing No.830701 under (HUF) with effect from 8.3.2007 with initial deposits of Rs.70,000/- and the OP No.3 opened the account of complainant without any objection and complainant as per directions of the OPs also fulfilled required formalities and also submitted complete filled form issued by the OP. The OP also issued passbook in this respect to the complainant. Complainant subsequently deposited the amount during the year 2008-2014 and entries were also made in the passbook issued by the opposite parties time to time under the above mentioned scheme. The yearly interest accrued on the deposits year wise has also been entered in the passbook upto July 2014, total comprising Rs.916383 till April 2014. The complainant deputed his representative for depositing Rs.50,000/- as an installment for the year 2014-15 as required under the rules but the dealing hand of OP No.3 refused to accept the annual deposit of complainant for the reasons best known to him. Complainant requested the OP to deposit the amount in PPF account or to intimate the complainant about the reasons for not accepting the annual deposits for the year 2014-15 under 15 years PPF account of complainant bearing account No.830701 when the same had been accepted by the post office without any objection since year 2007 till 2014. In case no further annual deposits are acceptable to the post office the complainant requested to refund the balance amount as per passbook entry of Rs.916383/- stands alongwith upto date interest, but the OP prolonged the matter on one and another pretext. The complainant moved representation immediately on 10.11.2014 and also issued reminders thereafter as well as on 1.9.2015 but till today the OPs neither release the balance amount nor continued PPF account of the complainant. Hence, pleading deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties, complainant has filed the present complainant seeking relief mentioned above.

3. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through their respective counsel and filed written reply pleaded that the complainant was never allured by the OPs. The complainant opened the account on his own. No account under the HUF was opened by the complainant. There is no mention of any such account in the application form for opening the PPF account. The status of HUF was not mentioned. As such, it was a simple PPF account. The complainant is not eligible/entitled for the interest as this account has been opened in contravention of rules. As per rule No.30(1) of Post Office Saving Bank Manual (Volume-I), if an account is opened in contravention of the P.O.S.B. General Rules, 1981, the account should be closed under the orders of the Head Postmaster. No further transaction should be allowed in it. If any annual interest has been credited in the account, it should be adjusted at the time of closure of the account through the register of rectification of interest and a remark of adjustment made in the ledger card. A written notice should be sent to the depositor indicating the irregular opening with a request to close the account within 30 days of the issue of notice and to take the withdrawal payment personally or through an agent. If the depositor does not comply with the request within 30 days, the account may be closed and the amount remitted by crossed cheque after deducting the interest, if any already paid. The deposit was refused under HUF head, as such, the same was denied. The Status of HUF for opening of PPF account has been discontinued w.e.f. 13.5.2005 vide MOF Notification No.GSR 291(E) dated 13.5.2005. If the depositor had mentioned status as HUF, the form would be rejected by the system as after 13.5.2005, now new PPF account in the name of HUF has been accepted by the system. As per MOF letter No.2/8/2005-NS-11 dated 20.5.2005, the account if any opened by juristic person (HUF, Trusts etc) i.e. person other than individual on or after 13.5.2005 under PPF, shall be treated as void-ab-initio and immediate action should be taken to close such account and refund the deposit without any interest to the depositor. Further existing accounts in operation prior to the amendment date 13.5.2005, shall continue till maturity and deposits/withdrawals in/from these accounts shall be allowed to be made in accordance with the said rules. However, any extension of existing accounts shall be subject to the amendments dated 13.5.2005. As such, according to the rules mentioned above, the deposit was denied on the basis of true picture came to the notice and the department is under obligation to treat the account “void”. However, the department is ready to refund the deposits without interest as per rules. Other allegations of the complainant have been denied and prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4. Parties were granted sufficient opportunities to produce evidence in order to prove their case.

5. Complainant Mukesh Bansal tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of passbook Ex.C2, photocopy of notice dated 10.11.2014 Ex.C3, photocopy of notice dated 1.9.2015 Ex.C4, original account opening form Ex.C5, photocopy of application Ex.C6, photocopy of PAN Card Ex.C7, photocopy of account statement Ex.C8, deposit slips Ex.C9 to Ex.C16. Complainant also examined Sh.Raj Kumar, Sub Postmaster, Main Post Office, Sri Muktsar Sahib and thereafter counsel for complainant closed evidence on behalf of complainant.

6. OP No.3 Raj Kumar, Postmaster, tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.OP1, photocopy of notification Ex.OP2, counsels for OPs tendered affidavit of Mrs.Kamlesh Chohan, Superintendent, Post Office, Faridkot Ex.OP3 and close evidence.

7. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and have also gone through the file.

8. Complainant counsel Sh.Sanjeev Gupta argued that complainant is having HUF status in joint family and OP launched scheme of opening PPF account under HUF for 15 years. Accordingly, the account bearing No.830701 under HUF w.e.f 8.3.2007 was opened with OP and deposited Rs.70,000/-. Complainant fulfilled the requirements and deposited the amount year to year and upto July 2014, the total deposit Rs.9,16,383/-. When for the year 2014-15, complainant desired to deposit then the dealing hand of OP No.3 refused to accept. Hence, this complaint. When complainant opened account of HUF and deposited the yearly without break then now stopping depositing on behalf of OP illegally. The amount lying deposited with interest to the tune of Rs.9,16,383/- be ordered to pay the complainant alongwith the complaint alongwith costs/compensation.

9. OP counsel Sh.Vikramjit Singh and Sh.RS Aulakh argued that OPs never opened HUF account in the name of complainant rather under the circulation of 2005 by higher authority opening the account under HUF status stand stopped. Neither in the documentary evidence nor while depositing year wise, OPs never accepted the amount as HUF. When deposit in HUF status stopped in the year 2005 then no ground is made out to open the account. Accordingly, learned counsel by referring the documentary evidence, prayer to dismiss the complaint with costs.

10. After the arguments of the OP counsel, Sh.Sanjeev Gupta prayed that before filing the complaint notice was issued and when record of OP was summoned regarding opening of PPF account No.830701 then before producing the Forum tempered with Ex.C5 at mark A from where the word HUF erased/delete. The punishment to be provided to the authorities.

11. So far opening of the PPF account bearing No.830701 and deposit from time to time are not disputed. When complainant deposited the sum since 2007 to 2014 and OP No.3 opened the account and issued the passbook then relation of complainant exists as consumer.

12. Now for adjudication, the Forum is to decide the status of the complainant either complainant opened the account in individual capacity or with HUF status. Complainant in its complaint and then in sworn affidavit given details regarding HUF status. In reply OP not denied the opening of the account. In evidence, complainant tendered various documents and summoned the record from the possession of OP through Sh.Raj Kumar, Sub Post Master, Main Post Office, Sri Muktsar Sahib i.e. CW-2. Ex.C2 is photocopy of the passbook of PPF account of complainant which proves the deposit alongwith interest Rs.916383/- as pleaded. Ex.C3 and Ex.C4 are requests on behalf of complainant to the OP. Then the star document i.e. Account opening sheet Ex.C5 which has come on the file from the possession of the OPs and in this opening sheet of account of Dr.Mukesh Bansal HUF recorded but at mark A HUF stand deleted. This document was brought by CW-2 Raj Kumar who proved this document and deposed that in between Dr.Mukesh Bansal son of Tarsem Bansal something was written with same ink and pen that stand erased which is at mark A. Besides this, complainant placed on file Ex.C6 and Ex.C7 these are the request to the OP and copy of PAN Card. Then account statement regarding deposit Ex.C8. Thereafter, Ex.C9 to Ex.C15 are the receipts vide which the complainant deposited the yearly and OP in its own hand issued receipts. Close perusal of these receipts proved that OP itself in Ex.C9, Ex.C10, Ex.C11, Ex.C12 and Ex.C14 the status of Mukesh Bansal is recorded as HUF.

13. To rebut the evidence of complainant, OP again examined Raj Kumar, Postmaster, who tendered his affidavit Ex.OP1 and then notification Ex.OP2. Besides this Sh.RS Aulakh Advocate tendered affidavit of Mrs.Kamlesh Chohan, Superintendent, Post Office, Faridkot Ex.OP3 and closed evidence. Vide these evidence and affidavits, OP has tried to prove that opening of the HUF account was stopped vide notification dated 13.5.2005 and relevant portion reproduced as under:-

“The accounts if any opened by juristic person (HUF, Trusts etc) i.e persons other than individual on or after 13.5.2005, under PPF, shall be treated as void-ab-initio and immediate action should be taken to close such account and refund the deposits without any interests to the depositors. Further existing accounts in operation prior to the amendment date 13.5.2005, shall continue till maturity and deposits/withdrawals in/from these accounts shall be allowed to be made in accordance with the said rules. However, any extension of existing accounts shall be subject to the amendments dated 13.5.2005.

14. Besides this OP has simply stated through affidavit that never HUF status account was opened of complainant.

15. This Forum has closely scrutinized the evidence in the shape of affidavits and by way of documentary, finally has come to the conclusion that if there was notification dated 13.5.2005 then it was for the OP employees not to open the account of HUF status but complainant has been able to prove that in the year 2007 w.e.f 8.3.2007 by depositing Rs.70,000/-, HUF status PPF account No.830701 was opened and passbook was issued in favour of complainant and complainant deposited yearly. Finally as per Ex.C2, the deposit stand proved to the tune of Rs.9,16,383/- and now OP has receiving deposit. So, complainant has been fully able to prove that OP opened the account of HUF status in the name of Dr.Mukesh Bansal. In this way, the complaint deserve to be allowed with relief of Rs.9,16,383/-. The complainant has been able to prove deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

16. In the light of discussion made above, complaint stands allowed, OPs are directed to make payment of Rs.9,16,383/- alongwith prevalent rate of interest in the post office since the entry of Rs.9,16,383/- with costs/compensation Rs.10,000/-. Copy of order be issued to the parties free of costs as per law. File be consigned to record room.

Dated: 18.11.2016.

(Karnail Singh Ahhi)

President

(Mandeep Kaur)

Member