DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.86/25.06.2008 Decided on : 27.02.2009 Sh.Roshan Lal S/o Sh.Dalla Ram, Satsang wali gali, Bareta, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa. ..... Complainant. VERSUS 1.Post Office, Bareta, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa, through the Post Master, Bareta. 2.Superintendent, Post Office, Bathinda. ..... Opposite Parties. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh.V.K.Goyal, Advocate, counsel for the complainant. Sh.B.D.Jindal, Advocate, counsel for the opposite parties. Quorum: Sh.P.S.Dhanoa, President. Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER:- Sh.P.S.Dhanoa, President. This complaint has been filed by Sh.Roshan Lal son of Sh. Dalla Ram, resident of Bareta, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa, against the Post Master, Bareta and the Superintendent, Post Office, Bathinda, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short called the 'Act') on the averments, which may briefly be described as under: 2. That the complainant, who is a senior citizen, deposited a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-, in his Account, bearing No.210770, opened by him, under Monthly Income Scheme. The OP No.1 used to pay interest at Contd........2 : 2 : the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month upto October, 2007. The last payment of interest was made to the complainant on 8.11.2007. On 29.5.2004, the complainant opened another account, bearing No.210769, under the same scheme and deposited, a sum of Rs.3 lacs. On the said amount he was paid an amount of Rs.2,000/-per month as interest. The opposite parties were required to pay him bonus @ 10% on the amount deposited by the complainant on expiry of period of six months. The provisions of the scheme, were explained to the complainant by OP No.1 at the time of deposit of the amount by him. Even other people residing in the vicinity of the complainant have also opened similar accounts under the scheme and are driving benefit thereunder. The opposite parties have not paid any amount on account of interest on the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- deposited by the complainant after 8.11.2007. Therefore, there is deficiency in service on their part. On being approached by the complainant, he was told by the opposite parties that he was not entitled to deposit more than Rs.3 lacs in his account. The opposite parties were also aware of the amount of Rs.1.50 lacs earlier deposited by the complainant at the time he opened the second account and deposited a sum of Rs.3 lacs therein. An official of the opposite parties also demanded a sum of Rs.2,000/- from the complainant, as illegal gratification, in case he wants to receive the requisite rate of interest under the scheme on the entire amount deposited by him. The complainant, has no other source of income, as such, he has suffered mental and physical harassment, due to stoppage of payment of interest, by the opposite party on the amount of Rs.1.50 lacs, deposited by him, in an arbitrary manner. As such, he is entitled to recover the amount of Rs.1,20,000/- including the amount of compensation in the sum of Rs.20,000/-, in addition to payment of interest payable to him at the agreed rate under the scheme. As the opposite parties, have failed to provide him relief, inspite of being approached, hence this complaint. 3. On being put to notice, opposite parties filed written version, Contd........3 : 3 : resisting the complaint, by taking preliminary objections; that the complainant, has no cause of action, to file the complaint; that this Forum, has got no jurisdiction, to entertain and try the complaint and that he has not approached this Forum with clean hands and suppressed the material facts, from its knowledge, as such, his complaint is liable to be dismissed with compensatory costs. On merits, the factum of deposit of Rs.1.50 lacs in Account No.210770 and a sum of Rs. 3 lacs in Account No.210769 on 29.5.2004, under the Monthly Income Scheme is admitted. It is submitted that as per the scheme floated by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, an individual can deposit maximum amount in the sum of Rs.3 lacs in single account and a sum of Rs.6 lacs in joint account, but if such a person deposit the amount beyond the prescribed limit, then he is not entitled to get payment of interest as per the terms and conditions of the scheme. It is submitted that the complainant has exceeded the limit prescribed under the limit, as such, he is not entitled to receive the payment of interest on the amount deposited by him beyond the prescribed limit and he has deposited the amount in the second account opened by him by concealing the factum of deposit made by him in his previous account . It is denied that contents of the scheme were explained by OP No.2 to the complainant at the time he opened the account or they sought any amount on account of illegal gratification from him. Rest of the allegations, made in the complaint, have been denied, and a prayer, has been made, for dismissal of the same, with costs. 4. On being called upon, by this Forum, to do so, learned counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence, duly sworn affidavit of the complainant Ext.C-1 and copy of pass book Ext.C-2 before he closed the evidence on his behalf. On the other hand, Sh.Suresh Chand, Sub Post Master, has furnished his affidavit Ext.OP-1 and Sh.Sunil Kumar, Sub Divisional Inspector (Post Offices), District Mansa, has furnished his affidavit, Ext.OP-2. Learned counsel for the opposite parties also tendered Contd........4 : 4 : in evidence, the copies of other documents, Ext.OP-3 and OP-4, before he closed their evidence. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the oral and documentary evidence, adduced on record, by the parties, carefully, with their kind assistance. 6. Sh.V.K.Goel, Advocate learned counsel for the complainant, has argued that there is no bar against, opening of more than one account, by a person and officials of the opposite parties have opened the two single accounts in the name of complainant on even date under the same scheme accepting more the amount more than prescribed limit under the rules, as such, non-payment of interest at agreed rate is deficiency in service, on the part of the opposite parties. Learned counsel, has also argued that, there is no evidence to show that contents of the scheme, were read over and explained, to the complainant, by the officials of the opposite parties, at the time of deposit of amount by the complainant, under the scheme. Learned counsel, has argued that complainant, has been subjected, to mental and physical agony, due to unfair trade practice, adopted by the opposite parties, as such, he is entitled for the payment of interest, on the amount of Rs.1.50 lacs, deposited by him at the rate prescribed under the scheme and he is entitled for recovery of amount due, compensation and costs, as prayed for. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties Sh.B.D.Jindal, Advocate, has submitted that every citizen is supposed to know the law of the land and statutory rules framed thereunder, as such, the complainant, cannot plead that he was ignorant about the terms and conditions of the scheme floated by the opposite parties or was misled by the officials of the opposite parties, before he deposited the amount more than prescribed limit in two single accounts and he cannot be said to be victim of any misconception. Learned counsel, has also submitted that it was for the complainant, in his own interest, to seek clarification, from the Contd........5 : 5 : officials of the opposite parties, before he deposited the amount, in different accounts, beyond the prescribed limit in different accounts opened on even dates, under the scheme launched by the opposite parties, if he had any doubt. Learned counsel argued that opposite parties are well within their right, to reduce the amount of interest on the amount deposited by complainant in excess of limit prescribed under the scheme and rules framed thereunder, as such, there is no deficiency on their part and complainant is not entitled to grant of reliefs prayed for. 8. As per the admitted facts the complainant has deposited a sum of Rs.3 lacs in account No.210769 and sum of Rs.1.50 lacs in account No.210770 under the Monthly Income Scheme on 1.6.2004. The opposite parties have paid him interest on the amount of Rs.1.50 lacs upto 8.11.2007, but thereafter stopped making payment of interest at the rate prescribed in the scheme, on the ground, that he was not entitled to deposit a sum of more than Rs. 3 lacs. In order to prove their plea, the opposite parties have produced on record series of documents including extract of rules framed under the scheme, blank account opening forms, pass book and notices served upon the complainant Ext.OP-3 to OP-8. The rule 4 of Post Office (Monthly Income Account) Rules, 1987, provides as under:- A depositor may operate more than one account,under these rules, subject to the condition, that deposits, in all accounts taken together, shall not exceed, rupees three lakhs, in single account and rupees six lakhs, in joint account. A bare perusal of the above said rule goes to show that depositor may operate, more than one account, under the scheme subject to the condition, the amount shall not exceed Rupees 3 lacs in a Single Account and Rupees 6 lacs in a Joint Account. The complainant has opened account in two single accounts opened on even date, one after the other. As such he cannot be said to be guilty of concealment of factum of Contd........6 : 6 : opening of account which was prior in time. The officials of the opposite parties were at liberty, to refuse to accept the amount and to open more than one account especially when complainant had given same parentage and address. As such, complainant appears to have been misled due to conduct of officials of the opposite parties, when on making payment at rates prescribed under the scheme upto 8.11.2007. However, there is no estoppel against a statute and no bar that department cannot order rectification of error, and effect recovery of excess amount paid to the complainant or to reduce the rate of interest awarded erroneously or misinterpretation of rules. Every account holder gives an undertaking at the time of opening of account, to keep balance, within the limits prescribed in the rules framed under the scheme and to abide by them, as envisaged in instructions printed on form Ext.OP-5. The complainant is at liberty, to withdraw the amount from the said account, if he so desires, and invest it, under some other scheme which he considers, more beneficial, with the department concerned or any other institution, but opposite parties, cannot be directed to pay him interest at the rate prescribed under the scheme, on excess amount deposited by him and to cause loss to the State exchequer. As such, in our opinion, there is no deficiency, in service, on the part of the opposite parties, which may invite indulgence of this Forum. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, we have come to the irresistible conclusion that instant complaint is bound, to fail and the complainant, has not suffered, any physical and mental agony, on account of reduction or non-payment of interest on the amount of Rs.1.50 lacs, as provided in the scheme. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion, that he is, neither entitled to payment of any amount, on account of compensation, nor as costs, demanded by him, for expenditure incurred, for filing the present complaint. Contd........7 : 7 : 10. For what has been discussed above, by us, we hereby dismiss the complaint. However, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we leave the parties, to bear their own costs. 11. The copies of the order be supplied, to the parties, free of costs, as permissible, under the rules. File be indexed and consigned to record. Pronounced: 27.02.2009 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, P.S.Dhanoa, Member. Member. President.
