Punjab

Sangrur

CC/51/2015

Mangat Rai - Complainant(s)

Versus

Post Office - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Rajinder Goyal

08 May 2015

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                                      

                                                          Complaint No.   51                                      

                                                          Instituted on:    02.02.2015

                                                          Decided On:      08.05.2015

 

Mangat Rai son of Sh. Ram Chand r/o M/s Ram Chand Chajju Ram Commissions Agent, Dirba, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur.   

                                                        …. Complainant.      

                                         Versus

1.     Post Master, Post Office ( Main) Near Old Grain Market, Sunam, District Sangrur.

2.     Department of Posts through  Superintendent Post Offices, Sangrur Division, Main Post Office, Sangrur.

….Opposite parties.

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:  Shri Rajinder Goyal, Advocate                          

 

FOR THE OPP. PARTIES   :    Shri  Kali Ram Garg Advocate.

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

K.C.Sharma, Member

Sarita Garg, Member

                                   

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Mangat Rai, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he had availed the services of the OPs by opening  one HUF PPF account bearing account number 4089 from the OP No.1 at Sunam on 22.03.1997 which was for the period of 15 years however  the same could be extended for other five years. The complainant kept depositing the amounts in the above said account regularly  and same was to be matured on 31.03.2012 however  the complainant got the same extended for another five years and deposited Rs.500/-  on 30.03.2013 and thereafter  Rs.500/- on 27.03.2014 respectively. After depositing the amount of Rs.500/- on 27.03.2014 the complainant requested the OP No.1 to make  entry in the passbook by adding the interest for the previous years and to complete the passbook but he let off the matter on the pretext that he is busy due to rush of work.  Thereafter on 6.1.2015  OP No.1 calculated the interest and added Rs.4,01,901/- as interest upto year 2011-12 i.e. upto 31.03.2012 and   that too by  calculating  wrongly but refused to pay the interest from 1.4.2012  onwards, without assigning any reason. He also gave a note on the passbook that interest is to be paid till 31.03.2012 only.  The complainant  then requested the OP No.1 to add the interest for  the subsequent  years after 2012 i.e. for the year 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 respectively  as the account was extended  for another five years  and amounts were regularly deposited by the complainant after 31.03.2012 but OP No.1 refused to listen to the request of the complainant. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:- 

i)      OPs be directed to add  the interest ( at the prevailing rate) on the balance  amount for  the year 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15  in respect of PPF account number 4089 along with  future interest  till the realization of the entire amount.

ii)     OPs be directed to pay Rs.20,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment and  to pay Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by the OPs, it is admitted that complainant opened a P.P.F account number 4089 on 22.03.1997 at Sunam Sub Office with initial deposit of Rs.5000/-  in his own name under the category  HUF through P.P.F agent Sh. Sauni Ram Gupta. The term of the P.P.F account was 15 years.  The said account matured on 31.03.2012. The complainant deposited Rs.500/-  on 30.03.2013  and again deposited Rs.500/- on 27.03.2014.  The interest upto 31.03.2012 has already been  posted in this account.  The interest after maturity is not payable  in respect of PPF account opened under the category HUF  before  13.05.2005 which is 31.03.2012  in the present case.  As per circular the P.P.F account (HUF)  if matured after 13.05.2005  and not closed on the date of maturity will not earn any interest after maturity and cannot be extended after its maturity.  The said account as stated above as well as admitted by complainant matured on 31.03.2012. However, the complainant deposited Rs.500/- on 31.03.2013 and on 27.03.2014 in that account. The said deposits are irregular and no interest is payable in respect of this account after 31.03.2012.  As interest was not payable after maturity  i.e. 31.03.2012, there was no question of representing the complainant by the counter clerk of the post office that he being busy due to rush of work cannot make the entry in the passbook and that the complainant may come on some other day for getting entries  regarding the interest made in the passbook.  It is submitted that the interest amounting  to Rs.4,01,901/- upto the financial year 2011-12 has been credited in P.P.F. account number 4089.   The Post office  officials  are bound to act as per rules  and regulations/circular framed/ issued  by the Department  of Finance, Government of India, New Delhi.  The interest  of Rs. 4,01,901/-  payable for the financial  year 2011-12 has already been credited and  interest  after 31.03.2012 is not payable  as per the post office Saving Bank Rules and SB order No.23/2010  issued vide letter number 32-01/2010 SB dated 13.12.2010 wherein it has been provided that P.P.F  accounts opened  prior to 13.05.2005 and matured thereafter  if not closed will not earn any interest after its maturity  which in the present case was 31.03.2012. A clarification was also issued by Govt. of India Ministry of Communication and I.T. Department of Post, New Delhi.  The officials  of the post office are bound to act as per Rules and Regulations of the Finance Department.  Thus there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

3.             The complainant in support of his complaint has tendered into evidence documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-2 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand, the OPs have tendered into evidence documents  Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-4 and have closed evidence. 

4.             In the present complaint, the complainant had opened a P.P.F account with the OPs on 22.03.1997 for  a period of 15 years and after the expiry of 15 years i.e. from 2012 the complainant got the same extended for another five years and the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.500/- on 30.03.2013 and thereafter a sum of Rs.500/- on 27.03.2014 as per document Ex.C-2 placed on record but the OPs have paid the interest upto 31.03.2012 and no interest had been paid after that date.

5.             In reply, the OPs have admitted the account and the amount deposited by the complainant. Further, OPs have also admitted that no interest has been paid after 31.03.2012 as per the terms and conditions of the said scheme as per document Ex. OP-1.

6.             After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the documents placed on record, we find that as per document Ex.OP-1 the Govt. of India, Ministry of Communication and IT Department of Posts, New Delhi had ordered vide letter SB order number 23/2010 that “ PPF accounts opened in the HUF prior to 13.05.2005 but have already been matured but not yet closed, shall be closed on 31 March 2011 after which no further interest shall be admissible.”

7.             In this document which is Ex.OP-1 it has also been mentioned that if “  any over payment of interest if made shall be the responsibility of the counter PA and the Supervisor”.  Learned counsel for the complainant argued that since the OPs have accepted the amount in the year 2013 and 2014, so the OPs should pay the interest on the amount even after March 2012 till the closure of the account. Learned counsel for the complainant has further argued that the complainant should be paid interest either by the OPs or by the officials who have accepted the deposits from him in  the year 2013 and 2014.

8.             We have gone through the document Ex.OP-1 very carefully  and we find that in the light of the above documents the OPs have not paid  any interest to the complainant for the deposit accepted by them in the year 2013 and 2014 and the interest before that period has been paid and we find the mention of the same on the passbook of the complainant which is document Ex.C-2. So, the Ops have paid the interest as per the guidelines and the version of the complainant that he should be paid interest is not tenable as the wording mentioned in the document Ex.OP-1 is to recover the amount of interest or to fix the responsibility of the counter PA and the Supervisor had there been any violation of the said document Ex.OP-1 and that too to recover the loss caused by these officials, if any,  It does not mean that in order to pay the interest to the complainant the OPs should recover the amount of interest from the officials concerned. The OPs had paid the interest rightly in the light of the guidelines contained in the circular  Ex.OP-1 which governs the PPF accounts opened in this category.   

9.             So keeping in view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is dismissed however with no order as to costs. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.

        Announced.

         May 8, 2005.

 

 

 

( Sarita Garg)            ( K.C.Sharma)     (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

     Member                   Member                 President

 

 

 

BBS/-