KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL .No.608/05 JUDGMENT DATED : 07.01.2010 PRESENT:- JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SHRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER The Senior Supdt. Of Post Offices, Kottayam : APPELLANT (By Adv.Sri.K.R.Haridas) Vs 1. K.K.Abraham, Kaithakuzhiyil House, Pampady.P.O., Kottayam. 2. T.K.Mani, : RESPONDENTS Mulanjiyil, Puthuppally.P.O., Kottayam (By Adv.Sri.G.S.Kalkura) JUDGMENT SHRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Kottayam in the file of O.P.383/03. The appellants is the opposite party in the above O.P. who prefers this appeal from the above impugned order of the Forum below. The appellants are under orders to refund Rs.1,27,805/- the amount deducted from the amount deposited and bonus of Rs.19,8000/- with interest at 9% per annum from 14.09.03 and cost of Rs.1,000/-. On 30.09.08 this commission passed the judgment in the Appeal No.608/05 and set aside the order passed by the Forum below. The respondent/complainant in this appeal preferred a Revision petition No.572/09 before the Hon. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Ernakulam and National Commission allowed this revision petition and set aside the judgment dated 30.09.08 of this commission and the remanded back the case to this commission for fresh disposal on merit after given opportunities to both parties. As per the direction of the National Commission both parties appeared on this day and this commission heard this matter elaborately. The brief of the case is that the complainants are the consumers and they were office bearers as President and Secretary of Valiyakizhakkekara Kudumbayogam Puthupally. They, along with Shri. K.I.Abraham, were the office bearers and that the amounts were invested for charitable activities of the members and same were deposited in monthly income scheme of the opposite party in 7 accounts during the year 1998 and 1999. The accounts were in the names of petitioners and on the name of the late K.I.Abraham. Late K.I.Abraham expired on 07.12.98. He written a will and according to the conditions of the above will, the complainant was requested to be included in the account numbers which were in the name of Sri.K.I.Abraham also. The interests accrued were being used for Kudumbayogam activities only. His bonafide situation only to be spent this money for the welfare of members of the family. As per the order dated 20.08.01 the opposite parties intimated that one of the account numbers is in the names of the President and Joint Secretary of the Kudumbayogam and the same has to be treated as institutional accounts and the scheme does not envisage such accounts and directed to close the account ie, Account No.4811 without interest. The 1st complainant informed the opposite party that the account was opened and operated in his personal capacity and the name of 2nd complainant was included as per the last Will of Sri.K.I.Abraham. It was also informed that the funds do not belong to any institution on 23.09.02 and the complainants represented again in the matter. On 04/07/03 the opposite parties issued a letter directing to close the Monthly Interest Scheme (MIS) accounts by adjusting interest so far paid from the single amounts. The petitioners again approached the opposite party and also informed that the resolution of the Kudumbayogam which forwarded to change the second complainant was mainly only interest by the officer in charge of the account in the office of the opposite party. As far as letter 29.08.03 the petitioners were directed to withdraw the amounts and presented the pass books. The same was done. It is contended that the action of the opposite parties in accepting the deposits in the names and address of the office bearers and then declining to pay interest and deducting the interest paid amounts is amount to deficiency in service. The capital amount of Rs.1,98,000/- would have grown to Rs.2,17,800/- as per the terms and conditions of MIS accounts. The same has been reduced to Rs.70,195/- and has resulted in a loss of Rs.1,47,605/-. Hence the complaint filed for direction to pay the above amount with 9% interest from 14.09.03. The opposite parties filed written version and contended that which opening the accounts of the petitioners made the counter clerk and savings bank staff to believe that they were opening the accounts in their personal capacity. While one of the depositors ie, K.I.Abraham died the complainant was substituted as Secretary of the Kudumbayogam. But at the time of the auditing the Senior Account Officer detected the illegality as only individuals can open MIS accounts. It is seening from the evidence of the complainants were made by using funds raised by them and was intended to be used for the purpose of the activities o the institution. It was not strictly for the purpose of individuals. Individual is only eligible for the opposite parties MIS scheme. Hence the opposite parties have only acted as per the rules and there is no deficiency on their part. The first complainant filed the affidavit and marked Ext.A1 to A11 and the opposite parties produced 3 documents and as marked Ext.B1 to B3. For the complainant no witness was examined. But for the opposite parties P.J.John. DW1 examined as a witness “DW1”. The Forum below raised two issues: 1. Whether there is any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. 2. Relief and cost. The Forum below answered all the points correctly and it proved that the accounts were opened for the welfare of the members of the Kudumbayogam and not for the benefit of the individuals who had open the account. The post office small savings scheme Rule.17 shows that monthly income account scheme can be opened by an individual or more than one individual. It is an admitted fact that accounts opened in the address of Kudumbayogam. Even though the witness of the opposite party has averred in the affidavit that when the applications to open the accounts were given by petitioners as the office bearers of the institution, Valiyakizhakkekara Kudumbayogam, the rule that the account can be opened by individuals only was made known to them and pleaded their inability to open such an account and believing the statements of the depositors that the accounts were to be opened in their individual capacity only and the Valiyakizhakkekara Kudumbayogam has nothing to do with it, he allowed the petitioners to open the account. But this cannot be believed. If any such a prohibition for starting account in the name of an institution, they should not have allowed the petitioners to start the accounts with the address of Kumbayogam. More over, Rule 17 does not prohibit such an opening of an account. DW1 has stated during cross examination that Rule 11 of the Post Office Small Savings scheme prohibits such an opening of accounts and apart from this, there is no other Rules. The Rule 11 of the “MIS” states that the monthly income account can be opened by a single adult 2,3 adults in joint names etc. This does not prohibit starting of the account for the benefit of an institution exclusively for the welfare of members. The DW1 as admitted that this fact during in the cross examination. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the act of the opposite party in deducting then interest portion from the amount is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice according to the provisions of The Consumer Protection Act. The counsel for the appellant vehemently argued on the grounds of appeal memorandum that MIS scheme is only applicable to the individuals. But in this case these complainants are not individuals. They are the office bearers of the Valiyakizhakkekara Kudumbayogam and the proposed money will be utilized for the welfare of the members of the Kudumbayogam. The counsel for the respondent/complainant argued that this is not a registered organization either as per the provisions of the Charitable Trust Act or Charitable Societies Act. No special law and clause is not available the general law and clause is applicable. There are two important questions arised in this appeal for the consideration. Suppose the complainant are not individual, how admit them in the MIS scheme by the officers of the appellant/opposite parties. Secondly, suppose audit party has not pursuance this error, the appellant/opposite party is normally disbursing the entire amount to the complainant. Here there is no accepted system with the appellant. Another important question is the submission of the appellant is that all money is realizing for the charitable and welfare activities of the members of the Kudumbayogam. The post office authorities are really attempting to protect the irresponsible concerned subordinate officer through this appeal. The post office need not be acted as a court of law to examining whether the money is spending for the purpose of individual or any other personal purpose. What is their business to examine the object of the depositor? The companies are represented normally through their Managing Directors. Here the address of the complainant’s put as – President, Secretary of the Kudumbayogam. They are not representing the Kudumbayogam. They given their address in C/o.Kudumbayogam. Why cannot interpret such a way. The Kudumbaypogam is only a get together and one of the great persons intends to spend his money for the welfare of the members of his Kudumbayogam. It is well appreciated attitude of that great personality. The appellant taken this as a reason to cut short the interest of the complainants. This is nothing but a illegal act. The Post Office is the opposite party and they are having well qualified and well trained staff in their office. They are well aware about the Rules and Regulations. This is not a private financial institution functioning for the exploitation of the money from the public with unscrupulous staff. The argument from the part of the appellant is that their staff is having the chances to commit some chances. As per the direction of the National Commission this Commission already given proper opportunities to both sides. In such circumstances the citizens are the sufferers and loosers. The postal authorities if necessary they can collect the amount objected by the audit parties from the concerned employees as per the directions of the Supreme Court Reported case “ Balbir Singh Vs. Gaziabad Development Authority ( AIR – SC) . This Commission is having a strong view that The order passed by the Forum below is strictly accordance to the provisions of the law and evidence. It is legally substantial. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Hence confirmed the order passed by the Forum below. Both are directed to suffer their respective cost. M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT Kb. | 
