RESERVED
State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh
Lucknow
Appeal No. 751 of 2012
Union of India & Others
….Appellant
Versus
Smt. Lata Soni
……Respondents
Present:-
- Hon’ble Sri Udai Shanker Awasthi, Presiding Member.
- Hon’ble Sri Mahesh Chand, Member.
Sri Sudhir Pratap Singh, Advocate for the Appellant
Sri Anil Kumar Mishra for the Respondent
Date: 02-12-2016
Judgment
Sri Mahesh Chand, Member-This Appeal has been filed by Union of India through Secreatry, Department of Posts, New Delhi & Others, against the Judgment &order dated 2.2.2012, passed by learned District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum-II,Bareilly, in complaint case No 169 of the 2009Smt. Lata Soni w/o Shri S.K.Soni, R/o House No S-2, Saraswati Apartment- 228/A, Civil Lines, Bareilly.
In brief the Complainant’s case is that the complainant deposited a sum of Rs 100,000/- in the post office at Bareilly cantt. for opening of a MIS account no. 1400458 on dated 28.2.2008 and pass book was issued in the name of the complainant. The complainant was paid interest @ Rs 666/- per month on the said deposit for the period of 5 months from March 2008 to September 2008. This amount was deposited in two installments. A sum of interest Rs 333o0/- for three months was credited in the account on dated 26.8.2008 and Rs 1332/- for two months on 14.10.2008. By letter dated 14.11.2008 the sub-postmaster Bareilly Cantt. informed that the said account is illegal as the amount being deposited is not in the right multiples hence no interest is payable on it. It was also intimated that this account be immediately closed and return the interest already paid. The complainant met the Senior Superintendent of Posts, Bareilly Division, Bareilly in his office on 19.11.2008. and requested to make inquiry and pay the due interest immediately. No reply or information was given by the Senior Superintendent of Posts till 2.12.2008. Despite moving an application again by the complainant on3.12.2008, the opposite parties did not pay any heed to her requests. On 26.12.2008, the complainant presented an application to the Senior Superintendent of Posts for paying the deposited amount along with up to date interest and close the account. The complainant alleged that the complainant is not responsible for opening the account which was not in the multiples of Rs 1500/-. The Sub-postmaster was responsible for all this. The complainant also alleged that after issuance of letter dated 14.11.2008, the employees of the post office did not take any action to rectify and regulate the account into the multiples of Rs1500/-. They also did not pay the interest on deposited amount after September 2008. According to the complaint, since, the opposite parties did not pay the interest on the deposited amount, the complainant was forced to file this Complaint. The complainant prayed in the complaint that the said account be closed from the month of October and the interest be paid @ Rs.666/- per month till the date of refund of the said amount.
The opposite party filed the written statement wherein it was admitted that the complainant deposited an amount of Rs 100,000/- in MIS account no 1400458 with the post office at Bareilly Cantt. through the agent Smt. Neelima Saxena. The opposite party stated that as per rules the MIS account could be opened in multiples of Rs 1500/- only and not in that of Rs 1000/-. They also stated that the complainant was never told that deposit in question would regularly yield Rs666/- per month. They have stated that the parties are strictly governed by rules, instructions and guidelines laid down by the Government of India. The said account was opened in complete violation of the rules and guidelines. There was no error or deficiency in service on the part of the officials of the opposite parties. They prayed in the WS for dismissal of the complaint as not maintainable. They filed the notification dated 23.11.2007 in support of their statement.
The learned District Forum after perusing the evidences of the parties and hearing the arguments of their counsels passed the following order:-
“ The complainant’s complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to pay the principal amount of Rs 100,000/- (Rupees one lakh) to the complainant as deposited by her along with up to date interest @ Rs666/- (Rupees six hundred sixty six ) per month .
2. The opposite parties are also directed to pay a compensation of Rs5000/- (Rupees five thousand) and legal expenses of Rs3000/- (Rupees three thousand).
3. The opposite parties also directed that they make compliance of the order with in a period of one month of the order.
4. The complainant to deposit the court fee with in a period of 7 days.”
Being aggrieved with this order this Appeal has been filed. In the appeal, the appellants have taken the ground as those taken in the written statement filed before the District Forum. The account opened by the complainant under MIS was irregular and the request made by the Senior Superintendent of Posts to close the account was turned down by the complainant. The impugned order is perverse. The appellants prayed for allowing the appeal and dismissal of the complaint. The opposite party did not file any written statement or objections at the appellate stage. She has filed the written arguments. The appellants also have filed the written arguments.
We have perused the documents available on file and heard the arguments of the learned counsels of both the parties. The learned counsel for the appellant argued vehemently that the learned district forum has ignored the provision made in the instructions as mentioned in Government of India notification SB Order No 16/2007 dated 23.11.2007 where in it has been mentioned that as per Rule 4 and 5(1) of MIA rules from 1.1.2008 the MIS account is to be opened only in the multiple of Rs 1500/- instead of Rs1000/- fro 1.1.2008. The learned appellant’s counsel argued that the learned district forum erred in ignoring the said provision. The learned counsel for the respondent – complainant argued that the opposite party is responsible for acts of its employees. The MIS account was opened in multiples of Rs 1000/- on 28.2.2008 and the interest was also paid @ Rs 666/-for five months that is up to September 2008. He also argued that where is fault on the part of complainant-respondent. The respondent after receiving the letter dated 14.11.2008 from the opposite parties, requested to rectify or regularize the account in the multiples of Rs1500/- but they did not do that. From the perusal of the complaint, it is evident that the complainant-respondent met the concerned officials in their office on 2.12.2008, 3.12.2008, and 26.12.2008 and requested them to regularize the said account the multiples of Rs 1500/- but they did not listen to her and ultimately refused on 27.1.2009. They neither closed the account nor refunded the deposited amount with up to date interest. They have committed a deficiency in service and the order of the learned District Forum is justified. The opposite parties being the masters of their employees are responsible for their acts.
In the present matter The Complainant deposited the amount of Rs100000/- on 28.2.2008 and it remained deposited with Appellant. The Complainant-Respondent cannot be allowed to suffer for lapse on the part of the employees of the Appellant. If the account was not been opened in the multiples of Rs 1500/- by the employees of the Appellant, as required under the above mentioned rules, the Appellant could have rectified the said account and got it opened in the multiples of Rs 1500/-. The learned counsel for the Appellant failed to show any rules barring such rectification. Hence we are of view that Appeal deserves to be partially allowed. The impugned order deserves to be modified directing the Appellant to rectify the disputed account as deemed opened from the date when the said amount of Rs 100,000/- was deposited, in the multiples of Rs 1500/- (i.e. with the amount of Rs 99,000/-) after fulfilling the necessary formalities with in a period of one month from the date of this order. The Complainant-Respondent is entitled to receive the interest at rate as prescribed in the said scheme. On balance amount which remains after accounting in the multiples of Rs1500/- out of Rs 100,000/- that is Rs 1000/-, will also earn interest @ 8% from the date of deposit till the date of actual payment and will be paid along with interest with in a period of one month from the date of this order.
Order
In the light of above discussions and observations the Appeal is partially allowed. The appellants are directed to comply with the observations made herein above with in a period of one month of date of this order. The remaining part of the impugned order is here by confirmed.
(Udai Shanker Awasthi) (Mahesh Chand)
Presiding Member Member
S.k. st. c-5
