Delhi

StateCommission

FA/732/2013

UNION OF INDIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

MADHVI VERMA & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

30 Nov 2015

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Decision:30.11.2015 

First Appeal- 732/2013

(Arising out of the order dated 06.03.2013 passed in Complainant Case No. 99/2010 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VI, New Delhi)

 

Union of India,

Through Chief Post Master,

General Post Office,

Gole Dak Khana,

New Delhi-110001.

•  

Versus

1. Smt. Madhvi Verma,

W/o Shri Neeraj Verma

 

2. Shri Neeraj Verma,

S/o Late Shri V.K. Verma

 

Both R/o

V/6, P&T Sanchar Colony,

Chandralok, Sector-B, Aliganj,

•  
•  

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor, Member

 

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 

 

 

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

 

1. This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the “Act”) wherein challenge is made to order dated 6.3.13 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VI, New Delhi (in short the “District Forum”) in Complaint Case No.99/2010 whereby appellant/OP is directed to immediately release the maturity amount in account No.44980 with interest at the rate applicable to post office scheme on the amount exceeding the prescribed amount.  The Ld. District Forum has further awarded Rs.15,000/- towards compensation/litigation expenses.
2. Briefly the facts relevant for the disposal of  appeal are as under:

The respondents herein were the complainants before the District Forum.  A complaint under Section 12 of the Act was filed by them alleging therein that in the year 2003, two Monthly Income Scheme (in short the ‘MIS’) accounts were opened by them at Vadodara, Gujarat through an agent of appellant i.e. OP before the District Forum.  The account bearing No.869121 in the name of respondent No.1/complainant No.1 was opened on 6.1.03 and a sum of Rs.3 lacs was deposited in the said account.  The other account bearing No.869797 was opened in the joint names of both the respondents/complainants on 3.4.03 and a sum of Rs.3 lacs was deposited in the said joint account.  In both the accounts, in all Rs.6 lacs were deposited.

3. Subsequently on transfer of respondent No.2/complainant No.2 to Delhi, the respondents/complainants got the aforesaid accounts transferred to General Post Office, New Delhi in the month of November/December, 2005.  On transfer of accounts, new account Nos. were assigned i.e. the single account No.869121 was given the new No.44981.  The joint account of respondents/complainants i.e. Account No.869797 was given the new No. as 44980.  On 26.12.2005, the officials of the appellant/OP through letter dated 26.12.2005 had intimated the respondents/complainants that the limit prescribed for an individual for MIS account in the case of respondent No.1/complainant No.1 was exceeding by Rs.1,50,000/- as she had deposited Rs.3 lacs in single account (44981) and Rs.3 lacs in joint account (44980) i.e. Rs.1,50,000/-. The respondent No.1/complainant No.1 was asked to withdraw the excess amount.
4. On receipt of the aforesaid letter, respondents/complainants had made representation to the appellant/OP relying upon the judgement of National Commission in RP No.606/2005 titled Union of India vs Vijay Lakshmi and had requested for evaluating the case accordingly.  However, there was no response from their side.  Again after 3 months, respondents/complainants had sent a letter dated 4.5.2006 for informing the decision.
5. On 8.5.2006, the respondents/complainants received a letter dated 28.4.2006 of appellant/OP whereby they were asked for attending the office of Chief Post Master on 10.05.2006.  In compliance of aforesaid letter, the respondents/complainants attended the office of Chief Post Master and the issue of exceeding limit of MIS accounts of the respondent No.1/complainant No.1 was settled by converting single MIS account No.44981 in the joint names of both the respondents/complainants and accordingly both the accounts were termed as joint accounts in the name of respondents/complainants and MIS passbooks were updated.
6. It is alleged that on 6.1.09, the account No.44981 had matured and the maturity amount was duly paid to the respondents/complainants.
7. On 3.4.09, the joint account 44980 had also matured.  The appellant/OP did not release the maturity amount of aforesaid account.  The objection raised earlier vide letter dated 26.12.2005 was reiterated.  The respondents/complainants made various representations to the higher authorities but the maturity amount was not released.  Ultimately on 14.5.09, a letter was received by the respondents/complainants from Assistant Director (FS), O/o CPMG wherein it was stated that the MIS account in the name of respondent No.1/complainant No.1 had been inadvertently converted to joint account in the name of respondents/complainants on 10.5.06 in contradiction of instructions contained in DG Post letter No.5-20/UP-06/2000-INV dated 29.8.2001. It was alleged that as per aforesaid Govt. Instructions, the conversion facility was not available for MIS Accounts opened irregularly by exceeding the prescribed limits in order to compound the irregularity.  In response to above letter, the respondents/complainants wrote a letter dated 20.5.09 to Post Master General (o), Meghdoot Bhawan, New Delhi to consider the case objectively.  But no response was given.
8. Left with no option, the respondents/complainants filed the  complaint before Ld. District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of appellant/OP in not releasing the maturity amount of other joint account.  The prayer was made for the release of amount with up-to-date interest @ 18% p.a. w.e.f. the date of maturity i.e. 03.04.2009 till its realization and Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation and Rs.25,000/- towards litigation expenses.
9. The appellant/OP had opposed the complaint case by filing written statement wherein it was alleged that the conversion of the single account in the name of respondent No.1/complainant No.1 into joint i.e. in the names of respondents/complainants was in violation of instructions contained in DG Post letter No.110-23/2001 SB dated 7.1.2003. It was alleged that the same was done under duress.  The respondents/complainants were asked to refund the over payment/excess payment of interest made on ineligible amount of Rs.1,50,000/-.  It was alleged that the appellant/OP was ready to return the excess amount of Rs.1,50,000/- under the existing rules of the department but the respondents/complainants were not ready to accept it.  It was alleged that correct position as per rules was intimated to the respondents/complainants vide letter of appellant/OP dated 14.5.09 but the respondent/complainants did not agree for the same.  It was alleged that frivolous complaint was filed which was liable to be dismissed with costs.
10. Both the parties had led evidence by way of affidavits before the Ld. District Forum.
11. After hearing both the parties and considering the material on record, the Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint by holding that irregularity was done by the appellant/OP by converting the single account No.44981 into joint account as the same was not permissible as per the rules.  The act of appellant/OP operated  as an estoppel.  It was held that the wrong application of rules amounted to deficiency in service on the part of OP and therefore directed the appellant/OP to release the maturity amount in the joint account No.44980 with interest as per rates applicable to the MIS and also awarded Rs.15,000/- towards litigation expenses.

12.  Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, present appeal is filed.

13.  Ld. Counsel for the appellant has contended that if both the accounts of respondents/complainants, as referred above, are taken together, account of respondent No.1/complainant No.1 was exceeding the limit as provided under Rule 4 of Post Office (Monthly Income Account) Rules, 1987. It is contended that the same had already been put to the notice of respondents/complainants vide letter dated 26.12.05 of appellant/OP.  It is contended that the irregularity was wrongly cured on 10.5.06 in contradiction of Govt. instructions contained in DG Post letter No. 110-23/2001 SB dated 7.1.2003.  It is contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no deficiency in service on the part of appellant/OP.  In support of its contention, Ld. Counsel for the appellant/OP has relied upon judgement of Supreme Court in Postmaster, Dargamitta H.P.O., Nellore vs Raja Prameeelamma (Ms), JT 1998 (9) SC 100.  It is contended that since the MIS account of respondent No.1/complainant No.1 was opened in violation of statutory rules by exceeding the limit, the Govt. instructions issued vide DG Post letter No.5-20/UP-06/2000-INV dated 29.8.2001 were not applicable in the present case.

14.  On the other hand, respondent No.2/complainant No.2 who is husband of respondent No.1/complainant No.1 has submitted that objection of exceeding limit was raised vide letter dated 24.12.05.  However, the same was settled by converting single account of Madhvi Verma to joint account in the name of both the respondents/complainants, as such same could not have been raised again vide letter dated 14.5.09.  It is contended that the respondents/complainants be not allowed to suffer for the mistake of the appellant/OP.   It is submitted that for the mistake of Postal Department, consumer cannot be put to loss.  It is submitted that appeal be dismissed with cost.

15.  We have considered the submissions made by the Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

16.  It is not disputed that deposits in Monthly Income Schemes of Post Office are governed by Post Office (Monthly Income Account) Rules, 1987 which have been framed by the Govt. of India in exercise of its power under Section 15 of Government Savings Banks Act, 1873. The aforesaid rules are statutory rules.  The violation of the same cannot be permitted.  A person also cannot feign ignorance of these rules.  Reliance is placed on judgement of National Commission in the case of K.M. Singh vs Senior Post Master, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi, 1 (2003)CPJ 167 (NC) and Union of India & Anr. vs Girija Agarwal (Smt.) & Ors., 1 (2007) CPJ 196 (NC). 

17.   Rule 4 of the aforesaid Rules provides as under:

          “4. Opening of account:- A depositor may operate more than one account under these rules subject to the conditions that deposits in all accounts taken together shall not exceed rupees three lakh in single account and rupees six lakh in joint account.

          Note:- For the purpose of maximum balance, the depositor’s share in the balance of a joint account shall be taken as one half or one third of such balance according as the account is held by two adults or three adults.”

18.    It is admitted position that on transfer of MIS accounts of respondents/complainants to General Post Office, New Delhi, the officials of appellant/OP through letter dated 26.12.05 had raised an objection that limit prescribed for an individual for MIS account had exceeded in the case of respondent No.1/complainant No.1 and respondents/complainants were asked to withdraw the excess amount.  The said letter reads as under:

“To

                                    Smt. Madhvi Verma,

                                Shri Neeraj Verma,

                                23/4 B P&T Kali Bari Marg,

                                New Delhi-110001.

 

                       G-4/MIS/44980, 44981 NDHO dt 26.12.05

                       

                        Subject: Excess deposit in MIS A/c’s

 

It is intimated that BCO/NDHO/MIS Objection No. 133 dt 26.12.05 has raised a objection that Smt. Madhvi Verma opened a MIS A/c No.44981 for Rs.3,00,000/ Three lac in single A/c and MIS A/c No.44980 for Rs.3,00,000/ Three lac in joint name Smt. Madhvi Verma & Shri Neeraj Verma.  So Rs.1,50,000/ one lac fifty thousand has been deposited excess in A/c No.44980.  Please withdraw excess amount.  The interest will recover on excess amount and object can settle as soon as possible.

 

Sd/-

Chief Post Master(Savings Bank)

General Post Office, New Delhi-110 001”

     

19.     It is also admitted position that on receipt of aforesaid letter, respondents/complainants visited the office of appellant/OP and on 10.5.06, single account of respondent No.1/complainant No.1 wherein Rs.3 lacs were deposited was converted to joint account in the name of both the respondents/complainants. 

20.   The maturity proceeds of one of the joint accounts has not been released to the respondents/complainants.  On 14.5.09, a letter is written to respondents/complainants giving the reasons for non-release of maturity amount in the other joint account which is as under:

“Shri Neeraj Verma

Deputy Director General

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.

10.  

B-148, Barakhamba Road

New Delhi-110001.

                                                                           

No. ICO(SC)/Misc/Misc./MIS/NDH/09-10

Dated 14.5.2009

 

SUB: REGARDING PAYMENT OF MIS A/C NO.44980 IN THE NAME OF SMT. MADHVI VERMA & SH. NEERAJ VERMA

 

The enquiries made into the above case revealed as follows:-

 

1. Two MIS A/cs amounting to Rs.3,00,000/- each were transferred to NDHO from Vadodara HO.  The single MIS A/c of Smt. Madhvi Verma transferred vide AT No.57 was opened vide MIS A/c no. 44981 whereas the joint MIS A/c of Smt. Madhvi Verma and Neeraj Verma transferred vide AT No.25 was opened vide MIS a/c No.44980 at NDHO in the month of 11/05.

 

2. As the amount deposited by Smt. Madhvi Verma in both the Ac(s) exceeded the maximum limit of rs.3,00,000/- SBCO, NDHO has raised to objection vide No.135 dtd.26.12.05.  In this objection it is suggested that the exceed amount Rs.1,50,000/- should be paid to the depositor and monthly interest already paid on exceeded amount should be recovered.  As per Rule 4 of MIS rule 1987.

 

As per rule 4 of MIS Rule 1987, a depositor may be operate more than one account under the rule subject to the condition that deposits in all accounts taken together shall not exceed 3 lakhs in a single a/c and 6 lakhs in joint a/c.

 

3. Later on, the single MIS A/c No.49981 in the name of Smt. Madhvi Verma appears to have been inadvertently converted into joint A/c in the name of Madhvi Verma & Neeraj Verma on 10.5.06 in contradiction of para 7 of DG Post letter No.5-20/UP-06/2000-INV dated 29.8.2001 as this facility is not available for conversion of MIS Accounts opened irregularly by exceeding the prescribed limits in order to compound the irregularity.

 

In the instant case it is quite apparent that MIS account (Single) No.49981 was irregularly opened for 3,00,000/- as the share of Smt. Madhvi Verma exceeded the limits.  In this context, the conversion of Single MIS account into joint account is contrary to the rules and as such, the excess deposit of Rs.1,50,000/- in MIS account No.49981 is required to be refunded to Smt. Madhvi Verma together with the interest of 3.5% applicable Post Office savings accounts.

 

This is for information & necessary action.  This has been seen by PMG(O).

 

•  

Asstt. Director (FS)

O/o the Chief PMG, Delhi Circle

New Delhi-110001”

21.   The Govt. Instructions issued vide DG Post letter No.110-23/2001 SB dated 7.1.2003 reads as under:

•  

22.     We may mention that different dates and numbers of aforesaid Instructions have come in pleadings and evidence before the District Forum.  During arguments, Ld. Counsel for appellant has clarified the correct number and date of aforesaid Instructions which has been relied in the present case.  The same has been reproduced above. 

23.     It is admitted position that if both the accounts of respondents/complainants are taken together, the account of respondent No.1/complainant No.1 was opened in violation of Rule 4 of Post Office (Monthly Income Account) Rules, 1987 as she had Rs.3 lacs in single account and Rs.3 lacs in joint account.  Rs.1,50,000/- was deposited in excess in her account.  It has also come on record that the irregularity was brought to the notice of respondents/complainants vide letter dated 26.12.05.  It is also admitted position that single account of respondent No.1/complainant No.1 was converted to joint account by appellant/OP so as to cure the exceeding limit.  Reading the Govt. Instructions as reproduced above, the same could not have been done.  As per said instructions, a single MIS account can be converted to joint and vice versa.  But the facility is not available for conversion of MIS account opened irregularly by exceeding the prescribed limits from single to joint or vice versa to compound the irregularity.  In the present case, the account of respondent No.1/complainant No.1 was converted from single to joint to compound the irregularity which was not permissible. The irregularity was pointed out to respondents/complainants vide letter dated 26.12.05.  Even the disciplinary action was also initiated against the official responsible for conversion as is seen from Ex-RW-1/E annexed with evidence of appellant/OP. 

24.  It is also not the case of the respondents/complainants that aforesaid Rules/Govt. instructions are not applicable in the present case.  The only stand of respondents/complainants is that once the mistake was rectified in the year 2005 and there is no fault of respondents/complainants, they be not allowed to suffer.  The argument raised has no force.  The violation of statutory rules cannot be permitted.

25. On the point of inadvertant error on the part of appellant/OP in curing the irregularity, Ld. Counsel of appellant/OP has relied upon judgement of Supreme Court in Postmaster, Dargamitta H.P.O., Nellore vs Raja Prameeelamma (Ms), JT 1998 (9) SC 100 which relates to purchase of National Saving Certificates.  In the aforesaid case, due to inadvertence on the part of clerical staff, the old rate of interest and maturity value was printed on the certificates which was contrary to interest rates notified by Govt. of India.  The District Forum and State Commission came to conclusion that Govt. of India was bound to pay uncorrected maturity value of the certificates.  The revision filed by Union of India was dismissed by National Commission by a majority decision.  The dissenting Member disagreed with the findings of District Forum and State Commission and came to the conclusion that the respondent therein was entitled to the interest which was notified by Govt. of India.  The Supreme Court agreed with the opinion of the dissenting Member of the National Commission and held as under:

         “But as this contract was contrary to the terms notified by the Government of India and this was due to inadvertence of the staff.  In my opinion it does not become a contract blinding the Government of India being unlawful and void.  As such this is not a case of deficiency in service either in terms of the law or in terms of the contract as defined in Section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.”

26.  In the present case, due to inadvertence of staff there is violation of statutory Rules as well as Instructions contained in   DG Post letter No.110-23/2001 SB dated 7.1.2003 as are referred above.  The same cannot be permitted in view of discussion above.  There is a mistake of respondents also.  Respondents are educated persons.  The mistake was also brought to their notice as is stated above.   As noted above, disciplinary action was also initiated against the concerned official of appellant/OP responsible for conversion of account.  In the facts and circumstances of the case, wrong application of rules of the nature, as are discussed above by appellant/OP, does not lead to deficiency in service on its part.       

27.  In view of the above discussion, we accept the appeal and set aside the impugned judgement of the District Forum and consequently dismiss the complaint case No.99/2010 of respondents/complainants.  The appellant shall refund the amount exceeding the limit prescribed with interest in accordance with the rules.

28.  A copy of this order as per statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum along with their record and thereafter the file be consigned to record room.

 

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

(Salma Noor)

Member

 

 

sa