IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.M.G.Hiremath<br /> B.Sc., L.L.B (Spl.)- President<br /> <br /> <br /> 2. G.V.Balasubramanya<br /> B.E., LL.M - Member<br /> <br /> CC 215/06 DATED 31-10-2006<br /> <br /> Complainant S.Santhosh KumarS/o S.B.Rao, D.No.1063/118, New No.F-8, 8th Cross, 2nd Main Road, Vidyaranhyapuram, Mysore.<br /> (By M.G.Nagabhushana, and N.Gayathri, Advocates)<br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party 1. The Superintendent, Head Post Office, Nehru Circle, Mysore-1.<br /> 2. Post Master, Chamundipuram Post Office, Chamundipuram, Mysore.<br /> (By Sri.V.S.N., Advocate)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 03-08-2006<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 22-08-2006<br /> Date of order : 31-10-2006<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 2 MONTHS 8 DAYS<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri.G.V.Balasubramanya,<br /> Member,<br /> <br /> 1. The complainant invested Rs.1,50,000/- with the second Opposite party for a period of 6 years. The scheme known as Monthly Income Scheme (MIS) entitled the complainant to receive not only monthly interest on his investment but also bonus of 10% of his investment. The complainant made the aforesaid investment by means of a cheque dated 8-2-2006 drawn on State Bank of Mysore, Vidyaranyapuram Branch, Mysore. The cheque was realized on 11-02-2006. But when the pass book was issued on 17-02-2006 the complainant was shocked to see an endorsement that he was not entitled to bonus. On enquiry made with the Opposite parties he learnt that the bonus was payable to those accounts opened on or after 13-02-2006.<br /> <br /> 2. It is the contention of the complainant that as his cheque for Rs.1,50,000/- was realized on 11-02-2006, he is entitled for bonus. He addressed a letter to the first Opposite party but received no reply. The legal notice also met with the same fate. Hence, this complaint. He has prayed that the Opposite parties be directed to pay him bonus. He has, also, prayed for damages of Rs.500/- and cost of Rs.350/-.<br /> <br /> 3. The 1st Opposite party is the Superintendent of the Head Post Office at Mysore and the 2nd Opposite party is the Post Master of Chamundipuram Post Office where the Complainant has invested. They have filed a common version admitting the investment of the Complainant. The date of tendering the cheque is admitted. But they say that owing to intervening holiday on 09.02.2006, the Complainant’s cheque was received at the Head Office on 10.02.2006 and sent for clearing on the same day. However, because of another intervening holiday, the cheque was realized and credited to their account only on 14.02.2006. As circular No.G.S.R.59(E) dated 10.02.2006, prohibited payment of bonus to accounts opened on or after 13.02.2006, the Complainant was not entitled to bonus.<br /> 4. The Opposite parties have further averred that as per Rule 26 of the Post Office Savings Bank Manual Volume-I, date of realization of cheque means date of credit into the Government Account. The Opposite parties have strongly contended that date of debit in the Complainant’s account and date of credit to Government Account are not one and the same. They have, also, contended that they are not to be blamed for the delay in realization of the cheque.<br /> <br /> 5. The Opposite parties have also relied upon another circular of Ministry of Communications which says that the benefit under the scheme can be given if the cheque is tendered atleast 5 working days before the date of revision. In the Complainant’s case, cheque has been tendered only 3 working days before the date of revision of the scheme.<br /> <br /> 6. The Opposite parties have stated that the Forum cannot traverse beyond the ministry’s circulars which have a statutory effect. They have prayed that the Complaint be dismissed.<br /> <br /> 7. From the above contentions, the following Points arise for our consideration:-<br /> a. Whether the Complainant proves that his MIS account is eligible for bonus?<br /> b. Whether the Complainant, further, proves that the Opposite parties have caused deficiency in service by disallowing bonus?<br /> c. What relief or order?<br /> <br /> 8. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point No.7(a) : In the affirmative.<br /> Point No.7(b) : In the affirmative.<br /> Point No.7(c) : As per final order. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 9. Point no.7(a):- Most of the facts alleged by the Complainant have been admitted by the Opposite parties. Their only contention is that the complainant’s cheque having been realized on 14-02-2006 his account is entitled for bonus as it was withdrawn for accounts opened or on after 13-02-2006. The important days in this complaint are as under:-<br /> (1) 08.02.2006 Wednesday (cheque tendered to the 2nd Opposite party).<br /> (2) 09.02.2006 Thursday (holiday on account of Moharum).<br /> (3) 10.02.2006 Friday (cheque reaches 1st Opposite party and sent for collection).<br /> (4) 11.02.2006 Saturday (Complainant’s account is debited).<br /> (5) 12.02.2006 Sunday.<br /> (6) 13.02.2006 Monday.<br /> (7) 14.02.2006 – Tuesday (MIS account is opened). <br /> <br /> 10. It is the contention of the Opposite parties that they cannot be blamed for the delay in collection as there were two intervening holidays and they have taken prompt action by sending the cheque for collection immediately. One crucial question that is to be answered is whether the date of credit to the Opposite parties account is same as date of debit to the complainant’s account. The Opposite parties have contended that it is not the same and they have relied upon Post Office Savings Bank Manual Volume-I wherein the procedure for opening the account is described when the initial deposit is made by cheque. It is stated that if the cheque is a local one for collection by Office itself, the applications for and pay slip should be kept safely and the cheque sent for collection. After the amount is collected, the account should be opened in the usual way. The date of credit to be noted in the ledger and in the pass book will be the date of realization of the cheque. <br /> <br /> 11. The Opposite parties have furnished transaction report of the State Bank of Mysore for 14.02.2006. They have also furnished a statement of cheques sent for collection. It is clear from the said statement that the Complainant’s cheque was sent for collection on 10.02.2006 by the 1st Opposite party. The Complainant’s account has been debited on 11.02.2006 as can be seen from the extract of the passbook produced by him. There is no reason for the amount not reaching the Opposite parties account (i.e. Government Account) on the same day. It is essential to understand the cheque collection process through the clearing house. The question is when the drawer’s account is debited on a particular day and the beneficiary’s account is not credited the same day where does the fund lie. In the instant case, the Complainant’s account was debited on 11.02.2006, but according to the Opposite parties, the credit came to them on 14.02.2006, the question is where were the funds during the intervening three days. The fund at any given point of time should belong either to the drawer that is the Complainant or to the Opposite party who is the beneficiary. Once his account is debited, the Complainant is no longer the owner of the funds and because it is not yet credited to the Opposite parties’ account, they are also not owners of the funds. Hence, the ownership of the funds is neither with the Complainant nor with the Opposite parties. The ownership cannot belong to any 3rd person. Looked from another angle it becomes apparent that the contract was entered into on 08.02.2006 when the Complainant completed the formalities and tendered a cheque to fulfill his part of the obligation. There was no further performance required from his side towards the contract. Hence, the Complainant cannot be deprived of the benefit bonus for no fault of his. The words “Realization of cheque” has to be construed as meaning “date of debit of the drawer’s account”. <br /> 12. We have gone through the circular of the Ministry of Communications dated 04.03.2002. It is only a direction to the Post Offices that undue delay exceeding 5 days in encashment of cheque would be viewed seriously. It does not state that the account holder will not get the benefit if the cheque is tendered 2 or 3 days prior to revision. The bonus has been withdrawn for accounts opened on or after 13.02.2006. As the Complainant’s account was debited on 11.02.2006 itself, the credit is deemed to have been made on the same day to the account of the Opposite parties. Therefore, we answer point 7(a) in the affirmative.<br /> <br /> 13. Point no.7(b):- There is no delay on the part of the Opposite parties in collecting the proceeds of the cheque. Deficiency in service has arisen as they have relied upon the transaction statement dated 14-02-2006 of State Bank of Mysore. Therefore, we answer the point in the negative. <br /> <br /> 14. The Opposite parties have pressed into service three orders passed by the Udupi District Forum on the same point. However, in view of our observations, we cannot concur with the view taken by the Udupi District Forum. Out finding is in tune with the order of the Hon’ble State Commission in Balachandra Datta Vs. Post Master, Peenya since we have also agreed that there is no delay on the part of the Opposite parties in the collection of the cheque. The other order of the Hon’ble National Commission in Head Post Master Kurukshetra Vs. Vijay Rattan Aggarwal is not relevant to the case on hand. In the instant case, declaring that the complainant’s account is eligible for bonus is sufficient compensation for the deficiency in service. With these observations, we proceed to pass the following order:-<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. Complaint is allowed.<br /> 2. The Opposite parties are directed to make an endorsement in the MIS pass book of the complainant that the account is eligible for bonus and pay the bonus as and when it accrues.<br /> 3. No costs. <br /> 4. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forpum on this the day 31st October 2006)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (M.G.Hiremath) (G.V.Balasubramanya)<br /> President Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />