Mobile: 9445357052. .. Complainant.
-Vs-
Postmaster,
Mylapore Post Office,
Mylapore,
Chennai – 600 004. .. Opposite Party.
* * * * *
Counsel for the Complainant : M/s. V. Rajagopal
Counsel for Opposite Party : M/s. D. Chandar
On perusal of records and upon treating the written arguments as oral arguments on endorsement made by the Complainant, and hearing the oral arguments of the Counsel for the Opposite Party,this Commission delivered the following:
ORDER
Pronounced by Member-II, Thiru. S. Nandagopalan., B.Sc., MBA.,
(i) The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and prays to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- along with a sum of Rs.60/- being the amount standing to his credit as on 31.03.2020 towards deficiency of service, and for causing untold misery and hardship to a senior citizen.
I. The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-
1. The Complainant submits that he opened Savings Bank A/c No. 0025417550 on 17.09.2009 with the Opposite party and operates the said account regularly and the balance outstanding in the said account is Rs.69/- as on 31.03.2020. As the service rendered by Opposite Party is far from satisfactory hence Complainant decided to close the account by authorising a representative to collect the balance amount standing to his credit and sent the account closure form along with the pass book duly filled by the Complainant in all respects but the Opposite Party did not allow the complainants representative to collect the amount which has caused untold misery and hardship to a senior citizen which is least expected. The Complainant submits that he had issued a cheque for Rs.60/- vide Opposite Party's cheque number 837112 on 05.02.2021 and submitted the said cheque through IOB-Santhome Branch to collect and remit the said amount to my savings bank account no.32057 but the Opposite Party dishonoured the cheque and returned the cheque to IOB proving the Opposite Party's deliberate and calculated action in dishonouring the cheque when sufficient amount is available in the said savings bank account which had caused mental agony, harassment, untold misery and hardship to a senior citizen and amounts to deficiency of service. Further the Complainant submits that he had specifically mentioned in the said cheque that if payment is not made he will be forced to file a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission but the Opposite Party did not bother to settle the amount till date, moreover the Complainant states that the Clause 2 of the Opposite Party's "general nothing" in the Savings Bank Passbook issued to the Complainant states that the Post Office is legally liable to pay the amount actually available in their record but the Opposite Party has not complied with this directive which amounts to deficiency of service. Henceforth Complainant issued a legal notice on 25.02.2021 to the Opposite Party to settle the claim which was not complied till date. Hence filed a Complaint.
II. Written Version filed by the Opposite Party in brief is as follows:
2. The Opposite Party representative working as a senior superintendent stated the facts of the case are well acquainted from the records available in the office and submissions made by the complainant are collectively and individually denied except those that are specifically admitted to the extent pertaining to the matters of record. The Opposite party submits that Complainant wrongly stated the account number as 0025417550 but the correct account number is 0025417050. The complainant opened an SB A/c 0025417050 at Mylapore HPO on 17.08.2009. The date of opening of the account is again wrongly mentioned in the complaint as 17.09.2009 instead of 17.08.2009. Moreover, the Opposite party denies the complainant's claim that the Savings Account 0025417050 being regularly operated is totally not correct. The said Savings Account 0025417050 is inoperative from 12.06.2014 and no transaction was made by the Complainant.
3. As per Post Office Savings Bank CBS Manual Rule 54(1) and as per Rule 8 (1) & (2) of GSR No.921(E) circulated vide SB Order 13/2019 dated 18.12.2019, an account in which a deposit or a withdrawal has not taken place for three complete financial years shall be treated as a silent account and credit of interest in a silent account shall not be treated as a transaction. Transaction in a silent account shall be allowed only after revival of account. The account can be revived through an application by the account holder and after completion of the due process by the accounts office. Hence as per this rule, the SB A/c 0025417050 of the complainant has become silent with effect from 01.04.2018. As per the above said rule, transaction in a silent account shall be allowed only after revival of the account. The account can be revived through an application by the account holder and after completion of the due process by the accounts office.
4. Opposite Party further submits that as per the Savings bank rulings, Rule 12 of GSPR 2018, circulated vide SB order 13/2019 dated 18.12.2019, at the time of payment of maturity proceeds or partial withdrawal or interest, the depositor shall affix his signature or thumb impression in the presence of the authorised officer who shall verify the identity of the person. Also, as per Rule 9 of Post Office Savings Account Scheme 2019, circulated vide SB order 13/2019, Form 2 is to be used for Closure of the account which had no provision for authorised messenger. Hence, as the account was silent and the depositor requested for closure of account through messenger without submission of any request for revival of the account, the closure of the account could not be effected as per the rulings on the subject and it was intimated to the messenger of the complainant clearly by the respondent that the depositor had to submit an application for revival of the SB account along with "Know Your Customer" form for further processing. Hence, there is no willful default on part of the opposite party and the opposite party has acted as per the rulings on the subject.
5. The Opposite party furthermore submits that despite knowing the facts that the SB Account No.0025417050 is inoperative / dormant and it should be revived by submitting a letter for revival at Mylapore HPO, instead the complainant deliberately issued a cheque bearing No.837112 on 05.02.2021 for Rs.60/- and the cheque was received for clearance on 08.02.2021. As per Rule 8 (2) of Post Office Savings Account Scheme 2019, transaction in a Silent Account shall be allowed only after revival of account. The account can be revived through an application by the account holder along with required KYC documents and after completion of the due process by the accounts office. When it was noticed that the account was silent, the complainant was called over phone by the Opposite Party and the ruling position was clearly explained. But the complainant, without following the prescribed procedure, threatened to meet in court. Hence no hardship was caused to the complainant as stated. Further the complainant without following the due procedure for revival of the account, has issued a cheque even after knowing the account is dormant. Hence, the cheque could not be processed and returned with the remark "ACCOUNT IS INOPERATIVE / DORMANT" as per the existing procedure.
6. The Opposite Party further submitted that the complainant has referred to the General instructions issued in the passbook which states that the Post office is legally liable to pay the amount actually available in its record. In the given instance the complainant was not denied payment of any amount as stated but the complainant was instructed to only revive the account by submitting an application for revival along with necessary KYC documents as per rulings for further operation/closure. But the depositor has not submitted the application for revival till date and has not complied with the prescribed procedure and hence there is no deficiency of service as stated by the Complainant. Hence the Opposite party prays the Hon’ble Commission to dismiss the Complaint thus rendering Justice.
III. The Complainant has filed his proof affidavit, in support of his claim in the complaint and has filed 4 documents which are marked as Ex.A-1 to A-4. The Opposite Party had submitted his proof affidavit. On the side of Opposite Party documents were marked as Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-8.
IV. Points for Consideration:-
1. Whether there is negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?
2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?
3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?
POINT NO. 1 :-
7. On careful perusal of records it is seen that the Complainant is holding a Savings Bank Account with the Opposite Party, the Complainant contended that he opened the Savings Bank Account on 17.09.2009 with Account No.0025417550 but the same has been denied by the Opposite Party stating that the Complainant wrongly mentioned the Savings Bank Account Number as well as the Account opening date in their averments. As per the Opposite Party ledger copy which is duly attested by the Opposite Party representative Senior Superintendent discloses the correct Savings Bank Account Number i.e 0025417050 and the Account opening date is on 17.08.2009 as found in EX.B-8. It is pertinent to note that the mentioned Account number and the Account opening date by the Complainant is incorrect as per the records of the Opposite Party. Further Complainant contended that he was operating the above said Account regularly and the balance outstanding in the account is Rs.69/- as on 31.03.2020 as seen in Ex.A-3 but due to the unsatisfactory service rendered by the Opposite party, Complainant decided to close down the Account hence authorised a representative to collect the balance amount lying in the account by issuing a cheque No. 837112 vide dated 05.02.2021 for Rs.60/- as found in Ex.A-2 further averred that along with the cheque the Complainant sent an account closure form and pass book to collect the amount of Rs.60/-. The Complainant further alleged that the Opposite Party has dishonoured the Cheque by causing mental agony and moreover the Complainant is relying upon the General Instructions Point No.2 in the Savings Bank Passbook issued by the Opposite Party i.e “The Post Office is legally liable to pay the amount actually available in its record” as seen in Ex.A-1.
8. On the other hand in contrary to the Complainants averments the Opposite Party denied all the allegations against them and also placed their submissions above the Complainant contentions that the said Account No.0025417050 is inoperative with no transactions from 12.06.2014 as seen in Ex.B-8 i.e the consolidated statement filed by the Opposite party representative. Henceforth the said Account due to inoperative for more than 3 years will be treated as a Silent Account as per the Post Office Savings Bank CBS Manual Rule 54(1) as seen in Ex.B-1 states that an account in which a deposit or a withdrawal has not taken place for three complete financial years shall be treated as a silent account and credit of interest in a silent account shall not be treated as a transaction. Transaction in a silent account shall be allowed only after revival of account. The account can be revived through an application by the account holder and after completion of the due process by the accounts office. Hence as per this rule, the SB A/c 0025417050 of the complainant has become silent with effect from 01.04.2018. Moreover the Opposite party submits that as per the Savings bank rulings, Rule 12 of GSPR 2018, circulated vide SB order 13/2019 dated 18.12.2019, at the time of payment of maturity proceeds or partial withdrawal or interest, the depositor shall affix his signature or thumb impression in the presence of the authorised officer who shall verify the identity of the person. Also, as per Rule 9 of Post Office Savings Account Scheme 2019, circulated vide SB order 13/2019, Form 2 is to be used for Closure of the account which had no provision for authorised messenger. Hence, as the account was silent and the Complainant requested for closure of account through messenger without submission of any request for revival of the account, the closure of the account could not be effected as per the rulings on the subject and it was intimated to the representative of the complainant clearly that the Complainant had to submit an application for revival of the SB account along with "Know Your Customer" form for further processing as seen in Ex.B-2 , B-3 & B-4 Hence the opposite party claims that they acted as per the rules by returning the Complainant cheque with the remark “Account is Inoperative / Dormant” as per the existing procedure. It is pertinent to note that Complainant did not adhere to the Opposite Party rules as observed in the facts and circumstances of the case.
9. On replying to the Complainant legal notice i.e Ex.A-4 dated 25.02.2021 the Opposite party stated that as per Rule 12 & Rule 9 of GSPR 2018 & Savings Account scheme 2019 at the time of payment the depositor shall affix his signature or thumb impression in the presence of the authorised officer to verify the identity , hence the closure of account through messenger is not considered and moreover stated that as per Rule 8 (2) D of Post Office Savings Account Scheme 2019 transaction in a silent account shall be allowed only after revival of account through an application by the account holder and even stated that the above issue has been taken to the nodal ministry for relaxing the provision in case of illness / sr.citizen and awaiting for the reply as seen in Ex.B-6. On careful observation of both the parties submission we are of a considered view that the Complaint is not allowed as the Complainant failed to comply with the Rules and regulations of the Opposite Party Bank Schemes alongside suppressing the facts and circumstances of the case. The Opposite Party diligently performed their duties as per the Bank Rules henceforth there is no deficiency of service noted in the Opposite party service eventually the complaint is dismissed. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered.
POINTS NO 2 & 3
10. As discussed and decided Point No.1 against the Complainant, the Complainant is not entitled for the reliefs claimed in the complaint and hence not entitled for any other relief/s. Accordingly Point Nos.2 and 3 are answered.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.
Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 31st of May 2023.
S. NANDAGOPALAN T.R. SIVAKUMHAR B.JIJAA
MEMBER II MEMBER I PRESIDENT
List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-
