JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU:   PRESIDENT

                    The appellant is the opposite party/Perunad Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. that is under orders to refund a sum of Rs 4.50 and to pay Rs. 2,000/- as compensation and 1,000/- as costs in OP No. 43/03 in the file of CDRF, Pathanamthitta.

2.          It is the case of the complainant that he was a subscriber in the chitty conducted by the opposite party/appellant.  The opposite party had sent a notice in a post card intimating that the chitty has been matured and that 7 instalments were outstanding and that the same should be remitted with interest within 15 days.  Two instalements were remitted on 06-01-2003.  At the time of remittance Rs. 5/- was charged as notice charge for notice sent in the post card worth 50 ps only.  Another two instalments were remitted on 21-01-2003.  But the opposite party sent registered letters to the complainant and the sureties.  Rs. 80/- was charged as postal charges for the registered letters.  The notices were sent on account of the illwill towards the complainant as he had resisted the illegal actions taken by the opposite parties earlier.  He has sought for refund of the excess and illegal notice charges collected from him and also costs. 

3.          The opposite party has filed version pointing out that the complainant had received Rs. 20,000/- with respect to the chitty on the guaranty of two sureties.  When the chitty was matured intimation was send directing to pay the defaulted instaements.  The Director Board of the Bank decided to start a new chitty.  When the application for the same was submitted before the Joint Registrar it was directed to take steps against all defaulters and sureties and intimate the action taken immediately.  It was in such circumstances that notices were sent to the complainant.  Notice charges were collected as per law.

4.          The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, DW1, Exts. A1 to A5, B1, B1(a) and B2.

5.          The Forum has held that the correct postal charges for the postal card sent is only 50 ps and for the registered notice the registration charge for the 3 registered letters would be only Rs. 67.50 ie, at the rate of Rs. 22.50 whereas the opposite parties have collected at the rate of Rs. 25/-.  It was also held that Ext.B1(a) Minutes of the Board of Directors in which the decision is taken to collect Rs. 5/- for notice sent in ordinary post and Rs. 25/- for registered letters appeared deliberately incorporated subsequently to suit the defense case.

6.          DW1 the Secretary of the bank has testified that Ext.B1(a) entry that as the postal rates have increased ordinary notices is to be charged at Rs. 5 and registered notices at Rs. 25/-.  He has stated that the above decision is mentioned as item No. 39 as it was a part of the decision taken as item No. 45.  It is the contention of the complainant that items 1 to 38 under item no. 45 contains the names of the persons to whom the Director Board has decided to gave loans at the interest rate of 14% and hence the decision to collect postal charges is numbered as 39 has no connection with the above decision and has been written in the Minutes subsequently.  On a perusal of Ext.B1(a) we find that the above decision in the Minutes appears to have been written in small letters compared to the rest of the writings.  It is also possible that it was omitted to be recorded and thereafter written in the book or that the allegation that it was recorded subsequently to suit the case of the defense is true.  But whatever be the case, we find that there is no dispute as to the fact that the complainant received the notice in the postcard and registered notices.  The difference with the postal rates is only a small amount ie, 50 ps with respect to the postal card and Rs. 2.50 with respect to each of the registered notices.  The fact that the complainant was a defaulter is also not disputed.  The total difference in the amount in view of the then existing postal rates is only Rs. 8/-.  It is to be noted that the manpower for sending notices etc. has to be taken into consideration.  The time spend by the officials of the bank for verification and for sending notices etc. are also valuable.  In the circumstances, we find that it cannot be held that the amount charged at the rate of Rs. 5/- for the postal card and Rs. 25 for the registered letter cannot be said to be unreasonable.  In the circumstances, we find that the order of the Forum directing to refund the amount and to pay compensation of Rs. 2,000/- and costs of Rs. 1,000/- cannot be sustained.  Hence the order of the Forum is set aside.

          In the result, the appeal is allowed.

                                                JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU:   PRESIDENT