MRS. FIROZA KHATOON, PRESIDENT
The facts of the case are the complainant being Karta of Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), on 31.03.1999 opened a Public Provident Fund (PPF) account with the opposite party under the Public Provident Fund Scheme, 1968 being Account no.1055713921. He kept on depositing money in the said account every year under the said scheme. The date of maturity of the PPF account was 31.03.2014. On maturity the complainant requested the opposite party to extend the period of PPF (HUF) account for further five years and accordingly it was extended by the opposite party. Upon such extension, the complainant kept on depositing money in the said PPF account. The opposite party continued to credit the deposit amount with interest in his PPF account during the extended renewal period up to 31.03.2019. The complainant submitted “Know Your Client” (KYC) documents twice on 16.08.2014 and 31.10.2014. Again on 20.03.2018 the complainant submitted documents afresh along with KYC form. Thereafter, a sum of Rs.43,778/- (Rupees forty three thousand seven hundred seventy eight) only was credited as interest on 01.04.2018 and further interest of Rs.55,133/- (Rupees fifty five thousand one hundred thirty three) only was credited on 31.03.2019 in the said PPF account. On 12.07.2019 the opposite party by sending a letter to the complainant informed that the said PPF account has been matured on 31.03.2014 and there was no renewal of the same for any further period. Opposites party also informed that no interest is payable to the complainant on and from 01.04.2014 in the said account.
The complainant vide reply dated 20.08.2019 stated that he is entitled to receive interest on the deposited money in PPF account till the opposite party makes its total payment to the complainant. The opposite party sent a reply dated 03.09.2019 and informed that the issue has been referred to higher authority but till date the complainant has not received any response from the end of the opposite party in this regard. The complainant was allowed to deposit money in his PPF account and interest were duly credited in the account till 31.03.2019 which clearly indicates that the said PPF account was extended for further period of five years. Thereafter denial of providing interest in the PPF account for the extended five years period is clearly deficiency in service. Hence this case.
The opposite party filed written version in this case and admits that the complainant opened the PPF account in his name as Karta of HUF which was matured on 01.04.2014. Thereafter, the complainant applied for extension of the account along with KYC documents and the account was erroneously extended for five years having its new maturity date on 01.04.2019. It is further stated that on 10.01.2015 computerised system was introduced and new PPF account bearing no.1055713921 was allotted against the old no.7541. Admittedly the complainant during the irregular extension period with effect from 01.04.2014 deposited money in his PPF account from time to time for which he claimed the maturity value with up-to-date interest of his PPF account.
It is further stated that in accordance to the extant PPF rules, PPF HUF account opened prior to 13.05.2005 and once matured, cannot be extended and will not bear any interest beyond the date of maturity. The PPF account in question was opened prior to computerisation of the work of the Barabazar Post Office. During the migration process from manual to computerisation, the software itself converted the ‘HUF’ account type to normal ‘self’ type account. When the complainant (HUF) applied for extension of PPF account no.7541 it got extended for five years with effect from 01.04.2014 under the wrong premises of its being a Single/Self type account in contrary to the Gazette Notification dated 13.05.2005 (GSR 291E), Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India and SB order no.23/2010 dated 13.12.2010. During scrutiny, it was noticed that the said PPF account had been irregularly extended and hence as per extant PPF rules it would not bear any interest after 31.03.2014 which is the actual date of maturity. According to opposite party the complainant is entitled to get full interest only till 31.03.2014 and the same was conveyed to the complainant. Therefore, the complaint case is not maintainable and liable to be rejected.
Points for decision
- Is the complainant a consumer in terms of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ?
- Is the case barred by limitation ?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief as claimed for ?
Decision with reasons
In order to proof the case, the complainant submitted evidence on affidavit and reply to the questionnaire filed by the opposite party.
The opposite has not submitted any evidence on affidavit in compliance with section 13(4)(iii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. On the contrary the opposite party on 21.01.2022 by filing a petition prayed to consider the written version as evidence.
On scrutiny of the record I find my predecessor in chair has allowed the said prayer of the opposite party vide order no.17 dated 21.01.2022 against the spirit of settle principle of law. By no stretch of imagination a pleading can be treated as evidence in any case. Moreover, section 13(4)(iii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 specifically prescribed regarding the procedure of evidence of the parties to the case. Therefore, we find no evidence on affidavit has been submitted by the opposite party. However on 04.01.2023 the opposite party filed evidence on affidavit in this case. The complainant did not prefer to file any further question as the complainant already submitted his questionnaires on 16.03.2022 on the basis of pleading which was replied by the opposite party on 13.05.2022. But we find the said reply dated 13.05.2022 submitted by the opposite party was not supported by any affidavit. So, this reply also cannot be treated as evidence of the opposite party.
Point nos.1 & 2
For the sake of brevity and convenience both the points are taken up together for consideration and discussion.
It is apparent on the face of the record that the complainant is a consumer in terms of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Therefore point no.1 is decided in favour of the complainant.
It further reveals from the material on record and evidence of the parties that on maturity of the extended period of 5 (five) years on 31.03.2019 when the complainant wanted to withdraw the amount he was told that erroneously the PPF HUF was extended on 01.04.2014 for a further period of 5 (five) years in contradiction of Gazette Notification dated 13.05.2005 (GSR 291E), Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India and SB order no.23/2010 dated 13.12.2010. So, no interest can be paid to him for the extended period of 5 (five) years.
On further scrutiny we find that the instant complaint case has been filed by complainant on 05.12.2019.
Therefore, it is crystal clear that the case is not barred under section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
In view of the discussion made above point no.2 is also decided in favour of the complainant.
Point no.3
This important point is taken up for consideration and discussion.
On perusal of the materials on record and evidence of the parties we find the following are admitted facts:-
- that the complainant being Karta of Hindu Undivided Family of Pawan Kumar Poddar opened a PPF account on 31.03.1994 with the opposite party under the Public Provident Fund Scheme, 1968 being Account no.1055713921 having its maturity date on 31.03.2014.
- that on the prayer of the complainant the said PPF (HUF) account was extended by the opposite party for another 5 (five) years having its maturity date on 31.03.2019.
- that the complainant kept on depositing money on various dates during the extended period of 5 (five) years and the opposite party has credited the interest amount in the said PPF account till 31.03.2019.
According to the opposite party as per Gazette Notification dated 13.05.2005 (GSR 291E), Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India and SB order no.23/2010 dated 13.12.2010 no extension can be granted or interest can be credited in PPF (HUF) account during the extended period of five years as the said extension for 5 (five) years of the PPF (HUF) account was granted and interest was credited erroneously. The complainant is not entitled to interest for the extended period on and from 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2019.
In reply it was argued by the complainant that as the extension of PPF account was granted and the opposite party kept on accepting the deposit of money on various dates and credited interest in the account till 31.03.2019, he is entitled to the amount credited in the PPF pass book till 31.03.2019.
Now the moot question is whether the complainant is entitled to any interest for the amount deposited during the period on and from 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2019 in his PPF account ?
Can the plea of erroneous acceptance of deposited money and credit of interest disentitle the complainant to claim any interest as prayed for ?
On the basis of the facts and circumstances as well as evidence of the parties our simple answer would be accepting of deposit of money and credit of interest in the PPF account during the extended period of 5 (five) years though erroneously on the part of the opposite party cannot disentitle the complainant get appropriate relief in the case.
If such deposit of money by the complainant were not accepted by the opposite party during the extended period of 5 (five) years, the complainant would have invested the same in some other scheme with appropriate authority to generate income as Karta of HUF.
It is not expected that every customer is aware of Government notifications or orders issued from time to time. But it is certainly expected that an employee of a particular Government office should be aware of Government orders, notifications etc. issued from time to time especially which are applicable in day to day business in their office.
In our opinion a genuine customer having no fault of his own cannot be made sufferer for the erroneous act of the employee of the Postal Department of India.
Having considered the discussion made above we are of the opinion on taking judicial note of the rate of interest of fixed deposit for the period from the year 2014 to 2019, the complainant is entitled to get simple interest @ 7% per annum on the deposited amount in the said PPF account on and from 01.04.2014 to till payment.
It also appears from the record that there is gross deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in dealing with the PPF (HUF) account of the complainant causing extreme sufferance to him.
In view of the elaborate discussion made above point no.3 is decided in favour of the complainant.
Fees paid correct.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
that the complaint case be and the same is allowed on contest with cost.
that the opposite party is directed to pay simple interest @ 7% per annum on and from 01.04.2014 on the deposited money till 31.03.2019 in the PPF account being account no.1055713921 within 30 days from the date hereof failing which the opposite party shall be liable to pay simple interest @ 7% per annum till payment.
that the opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only as compensation to the complainant within 30 days from the date hereof failing which opposite party shall pay simple interest @ 9% per annum till payment.
that the opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only as litigation cost to the complainant within 30 days from the date hereof failing which the opposite shall pay simple interest @ 9% per annum till payment.
Dictated & corrected by me
…............................
President
