Jammu and Kashmir

Jammu

CC/268/2017

ATUL GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

POST MASTERS - Opp.Party(s)

RAKESH GUPTA

06 Dec 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,JAMMU

(Constituted under J&K Consumer Protection Act,1987)

                                                          .

 Case File  No.                402/DFJ           

 Date of  Institution   :    23-12-2015

 Date of Decision      :      06-12-2018

 

Atul Gupta (HUF),

S/O Sh.Yash Pal Gupta,

R/O Trikuta Nagar,Jammu.

                                                                                                                                                Complainant

                 V/S

1.Union of India The Secretary of Govt.

   Ministry of Post, New Delhi.

2.Chief Post Master General,

  Bahu Plaza, Jammu.

3.Senior Superintendent of Post,

Bahu Plaza,Jammu.

4.Post Master, Post of Jewel Chowk,

  Jammu.

5.Deputy Post Master,

  Post Office Mubarak Mandi,Jammu.

                                                                                                                                                                Opposite parties

CORAM:-

                  Sunit Gupta        -             (Distt.& Sessions Judge)   President

                  Ms.Vijay Angral                                                                Member

                  Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chouhan                                       -Member

 

In the matter of: Complaint under section 10 of J&K Consumer Protection Act 1987.

                             

M/S.Anil Mahajan and Rakesh C.Mahajan,Advocates for complainant, present.

Mr.Harshwardhan Gupta Advocate for the OPs 1to 5,present.

 

 

                                                                      ORDER

1. Facts necessary for the disposal of complaint in hand are that the complainant had opened PPF Account No.409 with the OP Post Office,Mubarak Mandi,Jammu on,31-03-1993 and from time to time he deposited the amount in the said account till 30-03-2012.That the said HUF Account was opened by him and extended upto 31-03-2014 as per entries in the pass book(copy of Passbook is annexed as Annexure-P1)That the complainant had approached the official for deposit of amount, but was informed that the PPF of HUF has been discontinued by the Post Office, as such, the Post Office Personnel are unable to receive the amount for credit. Allegation of complainant is that he was shown helplessness by the staff, as such, he preferred to take money deposit with interest, but the OP Post Office has paid Rs.40,406/-vide cheque No.258390 dated 19-03-2014.That the complainant has suffered not only financial loss, but mental torture also because of the act and conduct of OP in discontinuing the account of complainant as HUF,as well as, for recovery of interest of Rs.14,146/-.Constrained by the act of OPs,complainant served a legal notice dated 04-05-2015 upon OPs calling upon them to pay Rs.14,146/-which has been wrongly withheld and deducted with interest @ 18% per annum from 19-03-2014 (copy of legal notice is annexed as Annexure-P2).That the OP No.3 SSP vide his letter dated 11-06-2015 in reply to the notice has informed that the D.G.Post vide letter dated 13-12-2010 has opined that the HUF account cannot be extended and the Ministry of Finance vide letter dated 07-12-2010 had amended PPF Scheme(copy of reply notice is annexed as Annexure-P3).That the complainant had deposited the money which has been received by the Ops without any reservation and they have also used the same and have no time prior to 2012 intimated the complainant of any instruction/amendment, whereby any restriction or modification has been made with regard to HUF Account. In the final analysis, complainant prays for refund of Rs.14,146/which has been wrongly withheld and deducted with interest @ 18% p.a. and in addition also prays for sum of Rs.80,000/-under different heads.
2.                       On the other hand,Ops filed written version and resisted the complaint on the ground that the Postal Department is acting as an agent of Ministry of Finance, New Delhi in providing the services of PPF Scheme under PPF Scheme Rules and the present complaint is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of proper and necessary parties, since the complainant has failed to array Union of India, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi in the complaint, which is a necessary party and as such the complaint requires outright rejection. That no notice under section 80 CPC has been served upon OPs before preferring the present complaint, which is a mandatory provision, as such the present complaint requires outright rejection. It is submitted that vide DG Posts letter No.32-01/2010-SB dated 13-12-2010 issued in view of GSRE 07-12-2010 of Ministry of Finance, the PPF accounts opened in the name of HUF prior to 13-05-2005 cannot be extended under rules. It is admitted by OPs that Account No.409 has been opened in Jammu Tawi HO on,31-03-1993 and stands already closed. It is further submitted that since the amount due to the depositor under rules was duly paid through cheque and as such the question of any financial loss or mental torture does not arise. Lastly it is prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
3.       Complainant adduced evidence by way of duly sworn his own evidence affidavit and evidence affidavit of Naresh Gupta.Complainant has placed on record copy of passbook, copy of legal notice, copy of reply notice and copy of letter  issued by OPs to all Heads of Circles/Regions Addl.Director General,APS,New Delhi.
4.             On the other hand,OPs adduced evidence affidavit of Hanif Khan Senior Superintendent of Post Offices Jammu Division,Jammu.Ops have also placed on record copy of letter issued by Ops to all Heads of Circles/Regions Addl.Director General,APS,New Delhi, copy of legal notice and copy of reply notice.
5.               We have heard L/Cs for the parties and also gone through the judgments produced by their behalf.
6.                 A very short controversy is involved in the present complaint to the effect that whether the complainant is entitled for the interest on the deposited amount under PPF with the OPs under the category of Hindu Undivided Family(HUF) w.e.f.01-04-2011 to March,2014 or not?
7.             Before we discussed about the contentions of complainant, it would be profitable to advert to the objections taken by OPs for non entitlement of the complainant for the demanded interest amount.L/C for the Ops has argued that vide communication dated 13-12-2010 by Assistant Director(SB)Government of India Ministry of Communications & IT Department of Posts to all Heads of Circles/Regions of Post Offices, an amendment was made to paragraph 9 of PPF Scheme1968 by virtue of which the PPF Accounts opened in the name of HUF prior to 13.5.2005 cannot be further extended after maturity and no further deposit can be accepted in such accounts after maturity. It has also been endorsed in the said communication that the PPF Accounts opened in the name of HUF prior to 13.5.2005,but have already been matured but not yet closed, shall be closed on31-03-2011 after which no further interest shall be admissible.
8.                     Precisely on the basis of said notification L/C for OPs has contended that the complainant is not entitled for the interest w.e.f.01-04-2011 onwards till the account of complainant is closed. He is relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in(1998) 9 SCC page 706 and AIR 2011 Supreme Court 2604.
9.                From the perusal of aforesaid judgments it reveals that in both the aforesaid cases, the controversy was with regard to the rate of interest to be granted to the complainant under Consumer Protection Act, but here in the present complaint, the matter is entirely different and as such to our mind the aforesaid judgments cannot be made applicable to the instant complaint.
10.               On the facts we have to made it clear that the Public Provident Fund Scheme,1968 was amended from time to time by the Govt.of India and by virtue of the amendment Notification No.GSR 291(E) dated 13.05.2005 HUF i.e. Hindu Undivided Family was deleted from the list of beneficiaries under PPF Scheme,1968.But it is again important to note that the said amendment  was made applicable by ending March,2011  in case where the account was not matured, which conveys that uptill March/2011 the scheme of Public Provident Fund was remained applicable for HUF also. It is also important to note that earlier no rules were framed under Public Provident Fund Scheme, 1968, but the rules were framed in the year 2014 vide Notification No.GSR 225(E)dated 13.03.2014.Under those rules, clarification have been given that under what circumstances PPF Account could be closed in other cases, as well as, in the case of HUF which was cease to qualify for the said scheme after 13-05-2005.This itself is sufficient to presume that the higher hierarchy of postal authorities were aware of the fact that the amendment notification No.GSR 291(E)dated 13-3-2005 has not given proper effect on the ground level. It is also pertinent to mention here that the depositor never used to deposit the money under PPF(HUF)Scheme until and unless it is accepted by the postal authorities.
11.             When we go through the photocopy of the pass book of the complainant which was opened under PPF Scheme under HUF it reveals that even after closure of the scheme i.e. March/2011 the Postal Authorities were regularly receiving payments from the complainant under the said account and they continued to receive that deposit till March/2014 when ultimately the account of complainant was closed. Initially this PPF Account was opened in the year 1993 and it ought to have been closed on 31-03-2009 after expiration of 15 years, but we find one endorsement in the photocopy of the pass book by virtue of which the said scheme was extended in favour of the complainant for another five years  and on the basis of the said endorsement the Postal Authorities were receiving deposits from the complainant till the year 2014.Now the fact remains that the complainant has actually deposited the amount w.e.f.2009 till March,2014 and once the said amount was deposited with the Postal Authorities how and under what circumstances the Postal Authorities can deny interest on the said deposited amount. The OPs have duly utilized the deposited amount for their own interest despite the fact that the scheme of PPF was not extended for the category of HUF beyond 31-03-2011.Though it may be negligence on the part of particular officials of Postal Authorities to continue receiving deposits of the complainant under the category Public Provident Fund (HUF) beyond March 2011,but the money which was deposited by the complainant was duly utilized by the OPs and not by the said official personally and as such there must not be any hitch by the OPs to grant interest on the deposited amount. Instead of granting interest on the whole deposited amount, the OPs at the time of maturity and closing the PPF account of complainant in March,2014 had wrongly deducted/recovered interest amounting to Rs.14,146/-from the total maturity value i.e.Rs.54,552/-and paid net amount of Rs.40,406/-to the complainant. This kind of action on the part of OPs amounts to inefficiency/deficiency of service towards the complainant.
12.          Hence for the reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that the complainant is able to succeed in proving the case in his favour and as such the complaint is accepted and OPs 1 to 5 are directed to pay an amount of Rs.14,146/-to the complainant. Since the OPs have withhold the said payment since last more than 4½ years without any reasonable cause, as such complainant is also entitled to recover interest on the said amount w.e.f.01-04-2014 till its actual realization @ 7% per annum.Keeping in view the circumstances of the case we also found the complainant is entitled for the litigation expenses amounting to Rs.10,000/-which is granted in favour of complainant and against the OPs.We further direct OPs to pay Rs.10,000/-as compensation for causing harassment and mental agony to complainant. The OP 1 to 5 shall comply the order jointly and severally within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of costs. On deposit of the said amount in this Forum, the same shall be paid to the complainant through payees account cheque.The complaint is accordingly disposed of and file be consigned to records after its due compilation.

Order per President                                            (Sunit Gupta)                               

Announced                                                           (Distt.& Sessions Judge)

06-12-2018                                                               President

                                                                            District Consumer Forum

Agreed by                                                                 Jammu.

                                                               

  Ms.Vijay Angral          

  Member                                                                                              

 

Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan

Member