DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
MUCHIPARA, BURDWAN.
Consumer Complaint No. 83 of 2015
Date of filing: 23.3.2015 Date of disposal: 17.5.2016
Complainant: Sri Ashok Kumar Saraff (Karta of HUF), S/o. Late Bajranglal Saraf, resident of 2, Dr. M.N.Ghosh Road, PO; Raniganj – 713 347.
-V E R S U S-
Opposite Party: 1. Post Master, Raniganj Post Office, Raniganj – 713 347.
2. Superintendent of Post Offices, Asansol Division, Asansol – 713 301.
Present: Hon’ble President: Sri Asoke Kumar Mandal.
Hon’ble Member: Smt. Silpi Majumder.
Hon’ble Member: Sri Pankaj Kumar Sinha.
Appeared for the Complainant: R.S. Ganguly, Autho. Representative.
Appeared for the Opposite Party (s): Ld. Advocate, Murari Mohan Kumar.
J U D G E M E N T
This complaint is filed by the complainant u/S. 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service, as well as, unfair tract practice against the Ops as the Ops have arbitrarily deducted interest component arising out of the PPF Account at the time of payment.
The brief fact of the case of the complainant is that he opened one PPF Account with the Op-1 on 29.3.1993 by deposing an amount of Rs. 6000=00 and accordingly a pass-book was issued to him duly entering the amount in it. Thereafter the complainant used to deposit regularly in this account for last 20 years and last payment was deposited by him on 25.3.2013 to the tune of Rs.70, 000=00 when the total balance amount was of Rs. 12, 45,033=00 including interest upto 31.3.2012 as per pass book. On 16.7.2013 the complainant was advised by the postal staff to close the PPF Account because the same cannot be continued further as it was HUF Account. Accordingly as per the advice the complainant by issuing a letter dated 18.07.2013 requested the Post Master to close the PPF Account and take initiative for making payment of the credited amount. The OP paid a sum of Rs. 9, 86,376=00 on 20.7.2013. It was observed that there is a great mistake in calculation of the actual payable amount which should be Rs. 12,45,033=00 plus interest for the period from April, 2012 to 20.7.2013 as per the calculation below:-
- Interest for 2008-2009 as per pass book =Rs.60,270/-
- Interest for 2009-2010 as per pass book = Rs.65,172/-
- Interest for 2010-2011 as per pass book = Rs.70,466/-
- Interest for 2011-2012 as per pass book =Rs.83,746/-
-
Rs.2, 79,654/-
But due to unknown reason this amount of interest has been deducted from the credit balance of Rs. 12,45,033=00 as exhibited in the pass-book and against closing interest Rs. 20,997=00 has been added and thereby paid Rs. 9,86,376=00. From the pass-book it reveals that inspite of adding the interest of Rs. 2,79,654=00 for four consecutive years, it has been deducted from the credit balance amount of Rs. 12,45,033=00 and thereafter only closing interest of Rs. 20,997=00 was added as under:
as per pass book credit balance = Rs.12,45,033/-
then deducted 4 years’ interest (-) 2,79,654/-
……………………………
Rs. 9, 65,379/-
thereafter added closing interest (+) 20,997/-
……………………………
thus total payment made Rs. 9,86,736/-
It appears that the OP has calculated the payable amount whimsically without any basis. The Complainant immediately brought the discrepancy to the notice of the Post Master-OP-1 by issuing letter dated 20.08.2013, which had been received by the addressee on 29.08.2013. Since then as no step has been taken by the OP he approached before Bardhaman District Consumer Protection and Welfare Centre, Burdwan to interfere in the matter so that payment has been regularized and the due amount is paid. The BDCPWC by issuing a letter on 24.12.2014 requested the Post Master to attend the grievance of the bonafide consumer and arrange to settle the dispute that has been cropped up for miscalculation of payable amount. Since then no response has been made by the OP in this regard, hence finding no other alternative he has approached before this Ld. Forum by filing this complaint praying for direction upon the OPs for making payment to him of the due amount of Rs.2, 58,657=00, interest on the said amount from April 2012 to 20.07.2013, compensation for Rs.50, 000=00, litigation cost of Rs.5, 000=00.
The petition of complaint have been contested by the OPs by filing written version contending that the Complainant as head of the HUF opened one PPF account on 29.03.1993 at Ranigunj Head Post Office. The tenure of maturity was 16th financial year i.e. in the year 2007-08. As per Government Rule being GSR 286 (E) dated 13.05.2005 circulated as order no SB10/2004 dated 05.09.2005 and order no 20/2005 dated 14.11.2005 it was directed that no PPF account opened in the name of HUF will be extended after maturity. The same direction was also circulated by Government of India, Ministry of Communication & IT wherein it enjoined that if any subscription is accepted in any PPF (HUF) account matured after 13.05.2005 no interest is accorded in such PPF account after maturity 2006-2007 and if any interest already credited that needs to be revised and reversed as on the date of maturity if the account is not closed in other case the amount will be recovered from the subscriber. It is further mentioned in the written version that the Complainant was fully aware of the impediment of the Central Government with regards to payment of interest after maturity of the PPF account for his personal gain of getting income tax benefit without making any endeavor for extension of the said PPF account with malafide intention continued to making payment of his subscription illegally after maturity of his PPF account. The OP-1 has acted in pursuant of the Government circular as aforesaid and revised the balance money payable to the Complainant on account of the PPF account on its maturity. Therefore all the allegations as made out by the Complainant is baseless, fanciful and for undue gain. The OPs are bound to act according to the Government circular as referred. According to the OPs as the complaint has no merit, the same is liable to be dismissed with cost.
The complainant has filed evidence on affidavit along with certain documents.
We have carefully perused the record, material on record submitted by the contesting parties, ruling as relied on by the Complainant and the Government Circular filed by the Ld. Counsel for the parties. The Ld. Counsel for the parties has advanced their respective arguments at length. It is seen by us that there are some admitted facts in the case in hand i.e. the Complainant being Karta of HUF opened a PPF account with the OP-1 on 29.03.1993 by depositing an amount of Rs.6,000=00, pass book issued entering the said amount, regularly paid for last 20 years, lastly deposited on 25.03.2010 for Rs.70,000=00, the total balance came to Rs.12,45,033 including interest upto 31.03.2012, the passbook shows the amount, on 16.07.2013 he was advised by the postal employee to close his PPF account as the same cannot be continued further for HUF account, letter was issued by the Complainant on 18.07.2013 to the OP-1 requesting to close the PPF account and make payment, The OP made payment on 20.07.2013 to the tune of Rs.9,86,376=00. The allegation of the Complainant is that at the time of making payment the OPs have whimsically and illegally deducted an amount of Rs.2, 79,654=00 from the total balance, which according to him is an example of deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice as the OPs have no authority to deduct the interest component on the amount which was lying with them and moreover from which they have earned profit. Though the Complainant received the amount paid by the OPs, but thereafter several written correspondences was made by him with the OPs requesting them for making payment of the due amount, but to effect and hence this complaint. The case of the OPs is that they have paid the entire amount along with interest as per the Government Circular dated 13.12.2010 to the Complainant and the he received the amount on 20.07.2013, hence there was no deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on their part and so they are no liable to make payment of any amount as sought for by the Complainant.
We have noticed that the Complainant uninterruptedly deposited money in his PPF account from 29.03.1993 to 25.03.2013. On 25.03.2013 the total balance in his PPF account was for Rs.12, 45,033=00 including interest. The Ministry of Communication & IT, Department of Posts, Government of India circulated an order on 13.12.2010 mentioning as follows:-
“PPF accounts in the name of HUF prior to 13.05.2005 cannot be further extended after maturity and no further deposit can be accepted in such accounts after maturity.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
PPF accounts opened in the name of HUF prior to 13.05.2005 will be closed on maturity i.e. 31st March of the 16th financial year from the year in which account was opened. No further interest will be admissible.
PPF accounts opened in the name of HUF prior to 13.05.2005 but have already been matured but not yet closed, shall be closed on 31st March 2011 after which no further interest shall be admissible.”
In view of the abovementioned circular the argument as placed by the Ld. Counsel for the OPs is that they have abide by the said order and in no way they can travel beyond the same. So there is no due amount which the Complainant is entitled to get. It is seen by us that the Notification was gazette in the Gazette of India Extraordinary, Ministry of Finance, (Department of Economic Affairs) on 07.10.2012 and thereafter Government circular was made on 13.12.2010, but subsequent to that date the OPs have received money from the Complainant in respect of his PPF account till 25.03.2013. Obviously the OP-1 got knowledge about the said circular, but he did not take any step to aware his officials about the contents of the circular and for this reason the staff of the OP-1 took the deposit amount from the Complainant beyond 16th financial year. Admittedly the Complainant opened the PPF account with the OPs in the year 1993 so the maturity date of the said account was the year 2008. After the maturity period the Complainant extended the same and the OPs have acted accordingly. We are of the opinion that where the circular came into effect in the year 2010, then it was the bounden duty of the OPs for making request to the Complainant to close the said account as per the Government circular. But without doing so, they have indulged him to deposit in the said account. In the said circular it is mentioned that after 31st March 2011 the depositor (HUF) shall not get any interest and accordingly in the instant case the OPs paid interest on the deposited amount till 31st March, 2011 inspite of taking amount from the Complainant till 25.03.2013. Admittedly till 25.03.2013 the principal amount was lying with the OPs. According to the Complainant he is entitled to get interest on the amount for the period from April 2012 to 20.07.2013. Admittedly the Complainant had duly received the surplus principal amount from the OPs. Upon considering the facts we are to say that it was the duty of the OPs to intimate the Complainant about the content of the circular well beforehand immediately after it was circulated. In support of his prayer the Complainant has relied on the ruling of the Hon’ble SCDRC, Chandigarh, dated 24.05.2012 passed in the case of State Bank of India vs. Balbir Kumar Ramneek Bajaj & another. The Ld. Counsel for the OPs has argued that the said ruling cannot be applicable in the case in hand as the instant case is related with Post Office, where the ruling is with State Bank of India. We have carefully perused the said ruling. In the paragraph no-7 of the same it is mentioned which runs as follows:-
7. ‘…………………………………….such a question arose in case of Senior Superintendent of Post Office and another Vs. Ashok Kumar HUF I (2011) CPJ 41 in which on maturity, the Complainant was not paid the full amount with interest and the Ld. District Forum directed the OP-Appellants to pay the balance amount. The State Commission directed that the Complainant was entitled to 6% interest. The Hon’ble National Commission upheld the order on the ground that since the deposits continued with the OP, it was, therefore, liable to pay interest. The award of interest @6% p.a. on the deposited amount after 31.12.2005 was held to be most equitable and rationale and the order passed by the State Commission was upheld.’
In the said relied case the Hon’ble, SCRDC, Chandigarh was pleased to place reliance on several rulings i.e. State Bank of India vs. B. V. Ramana Murthy, I (2008) CPJ 108 (NC), Senior Post Master, Head Post Office, Thanjavur vs. Nalini & another, IV (2010) CPJ 201.
Therefore having regard to the abovementioned ruling we are also of the view that admittedly since the deposits continued with the OPs till 20.07.2013, it is therefore liable to pay interest. It is true that till 31.03.2011 the Complainant had already received the interest component, hence in our view the Complainant in entitled to get interest for the period from April, 2012 to 20.07.2013 as sought for @6% p.a. on the deposited amount. It is true that as the OPs did not take any step to redress his grievance before coming to the Court of Law, hence such action can be treated as deficiency in service for which the Complainant is entitled to get compensation.
Going by the foregoing discussion hence, it is
O r d e r e d
that the complaint is allowed on contest without any cost. The OPs are directed to make payment either jointly or severally the interest component on the deposited amount of Rs.12, 45,033=00 for the period from April, 2012 to 20.07.2013 @6 % to the Complainant within 45 days from the date of passing of this judgment, in default, the decreetal amount shall carry penal interest @8% p.a. for the default period. The OPs are further directed to make payment a sum of Rs.500=00 to the Complainant towards compensation due to unnecessary harassment, mental agony within 45 days from the date of passing of this judgment, in default the Complainant will be at liberty to put the entire decree into execution as per provisions of law.
Let plain copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions of Consumer protection Regulations, 2005.
(Asoke Kumar Mandal)
Dictated and corrected by me. President
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Silpi Majumder)
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Pankaj Kumar Sinha) (Silpi Majumder)
Member Member
DCDRF, Burdwan DCDRF, Burdwan
