MR RAMSANKAR NAYAK, MEMBER …                     The factual matrix of complaint is that, the complainant along with his wife Smt Pramila Biswas jointly had opened 14 Nos of Monthly Income Schemes with the OP.no.1 vide MIS a/c No.55078181, 55078182, 55078183, 55078184, 55078185, 55078186, each of Rs.49,500/- dt.27.07.2011, vide MIS a/c no.55078188 & 55078189 for each Rs.49,500/- dt.28.07.2011, vide MIS a/c no.55078207 on dt.12.03.2012 for Rs.3,49,500/-, vide MIS a/c no.55078213 dt.02.08.2012 for Rs.1,48,500/-, vide MIS a/c no.55078214 on dt.05.09.2012 for Rs.1,98,000/-, vide a/c no.55078217 for Rs.99,000/- dt.25.02.2013, vide MIS a/c no.55078222 dt.16.07.2013 for Rs.2,55,000/- & vide MIS A/c no.55078227 dt.04.11.2013 for Rs.1,53,000/- in total Rs.15,99,000/- respectively and obtained income @ 8.40% per annum as per the conditions of the scheme. The complainant as per instructions of OP.1 prematurely withdrawn some amount and MIS a/c no.55078181 to 55078189 i.e. 09 numbers of accounts are earning regular monthly interests. But MIS a/c no.55078227 dt.04.11.2013 for Rs.1,53,000/- has been freeze by the OP.s with one plea or the other. Now the complainant is acute need of money, hence he several times approached the OP.s to pay his legitimate dues of Rs.1,53,000/- but the OP.s stated that as per directions mentioned in the letter vide no.150 dt.14.10.2015 of OP.no.2, the amount has been blocked for further order. The complainant contends that, at his needful time, the OP.s neither paying his legitimate dues of Rs.1,53,000/- with interest nor allowing him for any further transactions with the concerned a/c. So the action of OP.s is illegal, highhanded and there is deficiency in service by the OP.s, hence the complainant inflicted with both mental-physical agony, financial losses and valuable times, so he prayed before the forum to direct the OP.s to free the alleged account with monthly interest along with a sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation and cost.

2.         The OP.2 filed his counter version in the case and averred that, the complainant had opened Monthly Income Scheme accounts at OP.no.1 on different dates with different amounts with his wife Smt Pramila Biswas. The OP.2 contends that, as per rule- 159(ii) contemplated in the provisions of Post Office Savings Manual Volume-1, ‘The depositor may open more than one account subject to the condition that deposits in all accounts taken together shall not exceed Rs.4.5 lakhs in single account and Rs.9 lakhs in joint account on or after 1.8.2007. As such the complainant is well aware of fact of maximum balance in the MIS accounts held by him jointly/singly. He further contends that, the complainant has earned monthly interests irregularly of MIS a/c no.55078214 on dt.5.9.12 for Rs.1,98,000/-,  for a/c no. 55078217 dt.25.2.13 Rs.99,000/-,  Vide a/c no.55078222 dt.16.07.13 for Rs.2,55,000/- & vide a/c no.55078227 dt.4.11.13 for Rs.1,53,000/- and the complainant withdraws a total sum of Rs.1,43,277/- towards monthly interests for the above said 04 accounts. When the irregular accounts were detected by the SB Control Organization of OP.2, he objected the accounts vide no.150 dt.14.10.2015 and the complainant was allowed by the OP.1 on dt.13.10.2015 to close the accounts in contravention of rules vide MIS a/c no.55078207, 55078213, 55078214, 55078217 & 55078222 for a total sum of Rs.10,50,000/-. The MIS a/c nos 55078181 to 89 are earning regular monthly interest as per MIS rules and as the complainant and his co-depositor had earned irregular interest of Rs.1,43,277/- in contravention of rules, the OP.1 Sub Post Master, Umerkote has blocked the MIS a/c no.55078227 for Rs.1,53,000/- obliging the Objection order no.150 dt.14.10.2015 raised by the O/o OP.no.2. So the complainant will be allowed to close this account on refund of excess paid interest. Hence the OP.s averred that, there is no deficiency in service by their side and the account was blocked only envisaging the rules of law but not intentional. So they prayed to dismiss the case with cost.

3.         The complainant has filed copy of SB passbook, copy of other relevant documents. The A/A for OP.2 has filed copy of 14 annexure. None appeared for the OP.1 & 3 on call. However the complainant & A/A for OP.2 have heard the case at length and submissions considered.

4.         It reveals from the record that, the complainant along with his wife Smt Pramila Biswas had jointly opened the so called Monthly Income Scheme accounts and deposited a total sum of Rs.15,99,000/- to earn monthly interests and for the a/c 55078181 to 89 the complainant earned the scheme benefits as per the rules of Postal department, but the OP.s contends that, 05 number of accounts has illegally opened by the complainant in contravention of their rules and the complainant and his co depositor had earned Rs.1,43,277/- as MIS benefits. Hence detecting the scheme rules the OP.no.1 has blocked the MIS a/c no.55078227 for Rs.1,53,000/- of the complainant on dt.14.10.2015 by the direction of O/o the OP.2.

5.         From the foregoing paras and perusing the submissions filed by both the parties, it is clear that the complainant and Smt Pramila Biswas had opened 14 numbers of MIS accounts with the OP.no.1. It is seen that, as per the MI scheme provisions there is a limit of 4.5 lakhs for single depositor and an amount up to Rs.9 lakhs for joint deposit limit, but in the instant case the complainant with his co depositor had deposited more than the limit of joint deposits i.e. the complainant had deposited a total sum of Rs.15,99,000/-, hence when the matter stood thus by the O/o OP.2, they raised objection vide their letter no.150 dt.14.10.15 for which the complainant was allowed to withdraw a total sum of Rs.10,50,000/- on dt.13.10.2015.

6.         Considering all the facts and submissions by the parties, this forum has restricted it’s adjudication to the following issues:-

1)         Whether the complainant is a consumer as defined in the C.P.Act ?

2)         Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of OP.s ?

3)         Whether the complainant is entitled for any compensation as against the OP.s and if yes to what extent ?

7.         Sec.2 (d) (ii) defines a Consumer means any person who hires of any services for a consideration…..

            Sec.2 (O) of the act defines ‘service’ means service of any description which is made available to potential uses and includes, but not limited to the provisions of facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, procuring etc….

            Sec.2(1)(g) defines deficiency in service means any fault, imperfections, shortcomings or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force.

            Undoubtedly, the OPs are being duty bound availing of financial services to their customers/depositors and the present complainant availing that service for a valuable consideration i.e. interest on such deposits, hence the Complainant is a consumer under the Act.

8.         Further it is seen from the record that, the OP.1 has opened the alleged joint MIS a/c with the complainant i.e. 55078227 & Others during the year 2011, 2012 & 2013 i.e. for above 4 to 6 years and in the mean while the OP.s did not raise a single plea on irregular deposit or earned interest benefits under the scheme by the complainant. It is also pertinent that the complainant when rushed to deposit the socalled excessive amounts before the OP, the OP.s without raising any objection received the amount so deposited by the complainant. No doubt there is some provisions contemplated in the Rule 159 (ii) of Post Office Savings Manual, but the then OP.1 taken the amounts into their account as deposited by the complainant without any objection.

9.         In the counter the OP.2 contended that, the complainant has irregularly withdrawn Rs.1,43,277/- from the postal fund, hence they have blocked Rs.1,53,000/- along with interest of the MIS account of complainant. The OP.s does not stand prove their claim by filing cogent evidences before this forum. It is crystal clear from the record that, without prior any letter, notice or intimation the OP.s blocked the legitimate dues of complainant when he was acute need of that money, which is against the principles of res judicata. No doubt, the OP.s have filed copy of some annexure but failed to file their affidavit in support of their claim. From the whole transactions, it can be hold beyond doubt that, the very intention of the OP.s is dealing with the complainant was malicious, motivated by unusual enrichment at the cost of life and livelihood of the complainant. The OP.s blocked the amount of complainant in question, without any prior intimation or time, to which act the complainant inflicted mental agony as well as financial losses which cannot be evaluated in terms of money. So in view of every corner of the case we feel that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP.s and the complainant is entitled for relief.

            As thus the complaint is allowed against the OP.s with cost.

                                                                        ORDER

i.          The opposite parties are severally & collaterally hereby directed to pay the blockage amount of Rs.1,53,000/- (Rupees One lakh Fifty Three Thousand) along with interest as prescribed in the Monthly Income Scheme from the date of such blockage, to till the date of this order, inter alia, the OP.s shall pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) as cost of this litigation, and the OP.2 is at liberty to recover the cost amount from the erring official who responsible for the instant dispute.

ii.         All the above directions shall be complied with in 30 days of this order, failing which, the total sum will carry 12% interest per annum till its realization. Pronounced on this the 20th day of Feb' 2017.

                          Sd/-                                                         Sd/-

                  MEMBER                                           MEMBER, DCDRF,

                                                                                 NABARANGPUR