Per – Hon’ble Mr. P. N. Kashalkar, Presiding Judicial Member
This an appeal filed by the Union of India through the Post Master General, Aurangabad Region and the Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Nasik Division against the judgment & award 4/9/2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nasik (hereinafter referred to as ‘the District Forum’ for the sake of brevity) in Consumer Complaint No.197 of 2008, Kinjal Anil Mehta and Others Vs. The Union of India and Another. By allowing the consumer complaint partly, the District Forum directed the Appellants/original Opponents (hereinafter referred to as ‘the postal authorities’ for the sake of brevity) to pay to the Respondents/original Complainants (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Complainants’ for the sake of brevity) full interest on all three PPF Accounts as per the PFF Rules up to 10/6/2007 and also directed the postal authorities to refund to the Complainants the amount towards interest accrued after 10/6/2007 as per the PPF Rules and also directed to pay compensation of `7,500/- towards mental harassment. Aggrieved by this order, the postal authorities have filed this appeal taking strong exception to the award passed by the District Forum.
[2] According to the Complainants, the Complainant No.3, namely – Mr. Anil Ajit Mehta he had opened a PPF A/c. No.3878 on 5/8/1994. He opened a second PPF A/c. No.5679 on 25/11/1997 in the name of his minor daughter, namely – Kumari Kinjal Anil Mehta. Thereafter, he opened a third PPF A/c. No.17389 on 10/11/2001 in the name of another minor daughter namely – Kumari Paravi Anil Mehta. However, it is his case that the postal authorities refused to pay interest on the two PPF accounts bearing Nos.5679 and 17389 on the ground that these accounts were opened by the Complainant No.3, namely – Mr. Anil Ajit Mehta in violation of the policy of the Government and the PPF Scheme applicable to the PPF Accounts. When, the Complainant No.3 was told that he would not get interest under two accounts bearing Nos.5679 and 17389 for all the amounts he had deposited in the three PPF Accounts, he filed a consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the postal authorities. Defence of the postal authorities was that the Complainant No.1, namely – Mr. Anil Ajit Mehta had opened his personal PPF A/c. No.3878 in his own name at Nasik Head-Quarters on 5/8/1994. He was aware of the fact that he could not open more than one PPF Accounts. He subsequently opened two more PPF accounts in the name of his two minor daughters and went on depositing monies every year in all three PPF accounts. The Complainant No.3 maintained one PPF account in his name and other two PPF accounts in the name of his two minor daughters. As per Government Resolution in terms of letter issued by Ministry of Finance bearing No.F/7/11/05-NS II dated 31/10/2005 maximum limit of amount that could be deposited in any PPF Account is `70,000/- and in excess of `70,000/- no person is permitted to deposit any amount in the PPF account and one is entitled to open only one PPF account whether in his own name or in the name of his minor son or daughter, as the case may be. The Complainant No.3 opened three PPF accounts, one bearing No.3878 on 5/8/1994, another PPF account bearing No.5679 on 25/11/1997 in the name of his minor daughter, namely – Kumari Kinjal Anil Mehta, and he opened a third PPF account bearing No.17389 on 10/11/2011 in the name of his another minor daughter, namely – Kumari Parvi Anil Mehta. The Complainant No.3 went on depositing various amounts in all these three PPF accounts. Postal authorities refused to pay interest in respect of two PPF accounts opened by the Complainant No.3 in the name of his two minor daughters. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the postal authorities to pay interest as per PPF Rules on all the three PPF accounts held by the Complainant No.3. Aggrieved by this order, the postal authorities have filed this appeal.
[3] We heard submissions of Adv. Lata Patne on behalf of the Appellants/postal authorities and Adv. Rashmi Manne on behalf of the Respondents/original Complainants.
[4] We are finding that the Complainant No.3 had opened three PPF Accounts, one in his name and the other two in the name of his two minor daughters. In these three PPF accounts, the Complainant No.3 used to deposit various amounts at his choice. In appeal compilation at page (18) Table-‘B’ has been reproduced to show as to how the Complainant No.3 had deposited various amounts in these three PPF accounts. Postal authorities allowed interest to the Complainant No.3 to the extent of maximum permissible limit of `70,000/- covering all three PPF accounts. Postal authorities relied upon circular dated 31/10/2005 issued by Central Government, Ministry of Finance which clearly laid down that ceiling on deposit as provided for by the Central Government from time to time which is `70,000/- in a financial year at present is both for individual self account and account(s) opened on behalf of minors of whom he is the guardian taken together. So, the postal authorities acting upon this clarification issued by the Ministry of Finance restricted payment of interest only up to maximum limit covering all three PPF accounts and the investment made by the Complainant No.3. Maximum ceiling limit of PPF account was initially `60,000/- before 15/11/2002 and thereafter it was raised up to `70,000/-. Postal authorities had already informed the Complainant No.3 that PPF A/c. Nos.5679 and 17389 were irregular and the Complainant No.3 was requested to close these two accounts. However, the Complainant No.3 continued to make deposits in these accounts and, therefore, postal authorities had decided to refund an amount of `3,67,000/- from the PPF A/c No.3878, an amount of `4,19,000/- from the PPF A/c No.5679 and an amount of `2,80,000/- from PPF A/c No.17389 and thus, these payments were made by the postal authorities as per the Rules in force and for irregular PPF Accounts no payment of interest was made. Postal authorities have relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Post Master Dargamitta HPO Nellore Vs. Raja Prameelamma (MS) ~ (1998)-9-SCC-706 and argued that any mistake committed by the postal employees in allowing the Complainant No.3 to operate the these three PPF Accounts as he operated in contravention of the terms & conditions laid down by the Central Government applicable to the PPF Scheme would not entitle the Complainants to derive benefit from the wrongs committed by the postal authorities. Government is bound to pay interest as per scheme’s provisions and any contravention of the provisions by the lower staff of the postal department will not entitle the consumer to claim interest for the irregularities committed by lower rung of the postal staff. Relying on this ruling we are of the view that postal authorities have given interest properly and they had denied interest to the Complainant No.3 when they found that the Complainant No.3 had opened irregular PPF accounts and deposited monies contrary to the PPF Rules in force. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the District Forum erred in law in directing the postal authorities to pay interest up-to-date in respect of all three PPF accounts held by the Complainant No.3. In asking to do so, the District Forum ignored the salient features of the PPF Scheme and the limitation imposed thereof. Any investment more than `70,000/- in a financial year covering three PPF accounts held by the Complainant No.3 was not liable to get any interest under the PPF Scheme and, therefore, postal authorities had rightly refunded the monies as admissible and the District Forum erred in law in allowing the prayers of the Complainants by passing the impugned award to that effect. In the circumstances, we are inclined to allow this appeal and quash and set-aside the impugned order passed by the District Forum.
Hence, we pass the following order:-
ORDER
Appeal is allowed.
Impugned order dated 04/Sept/2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nasik in Consumer Complaint No.197 of 2008 hereby stands quashed & set aside. Consequently, the consumer complaint stands dismissed.
Parties to bear their own costs.
Inform the parties accordingly.
Pronounced on 29th February, 2012
