RESERVED
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
U.P., Lucknow.
Appeal No.2345 of 2008
Union of India through Sr. Superintendent of
Post Offices, Mathura, Dak Ghar,
Distt: Mathura. ….Appellant.
Versus
1- Smt. Sadhana Chaturvedi,
w/o Late Mahesh Chandra Chaturvedi,
2- Anand Chaturvedi
s/o Late Mahesh Chandra Chaturvedi,
R/o Gataasharm Teela, Mathura. …Respondents.
Present:-
1- Hon’ble Sri A.K. Bose, Presiding Member.
2- Hon’ble Sri Bal Kumari, Member.
Dr. U.V. Singh for the appellant.
Sri V.K. Sharma for the respondents.
Date 5.8.2015
JUDGMENT
Sri A.K. Bose, Member- Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 4.11.2008, passed by the Ld. DCDRF, Mathura in complaint case No.220 of 2006, the appellant Union of India through Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Mathura, Dak Ghar, Distt: Mathura (U.P.) has preferred the instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act 68 of 1986) on the ground that the impugned order is arbitrary, perverse and is bad in the eye of law. It was delivered without proper appreciation of law and/or application of mind on the basis of surmises and conjunctures and therefore, it has been prayed that the same be set aside in the interest of justice, otherwise the appellants will suffer irreparable financial loss.
(2)
From perusal of the records, it transpires that the respondents/complainants Smt. Sadhana Chaturvedi and another opened one Joint Account under Monthly Income Savings Scheme on 30.1.2006 at Sub Post Office, Arya Samaj Road, Mathura and deposited 4 cheques beaing nos. 1311178, 1311179, 1311180 and 1464011 for Rs.1,50,000.00 each totalling to Rs.6 lacs of Dena Bank, Mathura. The complainants/respondents were not issued Pass Book of the same in time and, therefore, a complaint was made in this regard to the higher authorities. Consequently, the appellant Postal Authorities informed them on 28.2.2006 that the aforesaid four cheques of Rs.1.50 lacs each were lost in transit. Therefore, the respondents/complainants again deposited 4 cheques bearing nos.7464016 to 7464019 on 1.3.2006 and the same were credited and debited in the account concerned on 3.3.2006. In the meantime, there was a change in the policy and the grant of 10% Bonus, payable under the Monthly Income Scheme was withdrawn w.e.f. 13.2.2006. Accordingly, the respondents/complainants were denied the benefits of Bonus. Aggrieved by this remiss and deficiency in service, complaint case no.220 of 2006 was filed before the Ld. DCDRF, Mathura for redressal of their grievances. It was argued that initially they had deposited the cheques on 30.1.2006 on which date grant of 10% interest was admissible. The cheques were lost in transit due to default on the part of the Postal Department for which they cannot be held responsible. It was a gross remiss on the part of the appellant as such, it was
(3)
contended that they were entitled for 10% Bonus in addition to the admissible interest from 30.1.2006, on which date the cheques were initially deposited.
The appellant Post Office, on the other hand, contended that the loss of cheques in transit is a different issue altogether for which other legal recourse is available to the respondents/complainants. As far as, the Monthly Income Scheme account is concerned, it became operative from 3.3.2006, on which date the cheque nos.7464016 to 7464019 were encashed and debited in the account concerned and, therefore, there was no deficiency in service on its part.
The Forum below took all facts, circumstances and evidence on record and held that the respondents/ complainants suffered the loss of Rs.60,000.00 as Bonus due to deficiency in service on the part of Sub-Post Office and, therefore, it ordered the appellant Post Office to pay a sum of Rs.60,000.00 to the respondents/complainant with 9% pendente lite and future interest. The appellant was also directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000.00 as cost of litigation. Aggrieved by this judgment and order, the instant appeal has been filed.
We have heard both the parties at length and have gone through the relevant rules and the evidence on record. Rule 6 of the Post Office (Monthly Income Account) Rules 1987 which has been issued vide Government of India, MOF (DEA) Notification No.GSR 701 (E) dated 10.8.1987 provides the mode of deposit in MIS as under:-
(4)
"Mode of deposit:- (1) The deposit under these rules may be made:
- in case, or
- by cheque or demand draft drawn in favour of depositor or the Postmaster of the post office and endorsed in favour of the Postmaster.
(2) Where deposit is made by cheque or demand draft, the date of deposit under these rules shall be the date of encashment of the cheque or the demand draft."
The aforesaid provision was enruled in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 15 of the Government Savings Banks Act, 1873 (Act 5 of 1873) and provides that where deposit is made by cheque or demand draft, the date of deposit under these rules shall be the date of encashment of the cheque or the demand draft. From perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that the date of deposit of cheque would be considered as the date of encashment of the same for the purpose of MIS. In the instant matter, after loss of cheques tendered on 30.1.2006 for opening the MIS Account, fresh cheques bearing nos. 7464016 to 7464019 were deposited on 1.3.2006. which were debited in the MIS Account on 3.3.2006. Therefore, this date (1.3.2006) will be deemed to be the date of encashment/opening of MIS account on this date. Admittedly, there was a change in the rule relating to payment of Bonus on Monthly Income Scheme and the Government of India discontinued the benefit of 10% as bonus on such accounts from 13.2.2006. Consequently, the appellant refused to pay bonus to the respondents/
(5)
complainants. This was done as per the notification/ guidelines of the Government and, therefore, the appellant committed no deficiency in service by denying the bonus in the instant matter.
As far as, the loss of cheques bearing nos.1311178, 1311179, 1311180 and 1464011 dated 30.1.2006 are concerned, they are entirely separate issue for which different remedy is available to the respondents/ complainants. It would be mis-joinder and grossly inappropriate to club the issue of loss of cheques in transit with the instant matter of payment of bonus under the Monthly Income Savings Scheme. It was contended by the Ld. Counsel for the respondents that the appellant cannot escape its liabilities in view of Sub-rule 110 (3) of the Post & Telegraph Financial Hand Book (Vol.I). We have given due consideration on this aspect of the matter. Sub Rule 110(3) of the Post and Telegraph Financial Handbook (Vol. I) deals with the cheques or drafts tendered to the Bank and cannot be applied in the instant matter as a separate Rule namely Post Office (Monthly Income Account) Rules, 1987 has been framed for dealing with the matter of Monthly Income Savings Scheme. This rule was framed in exercise of powers conferred under 'Section 15 of the Government Savings Banks Act, 1873' and as such cannot be overlooked. The Forum below failed to take into consideration the provisions contained under Rule 6 of the Post Office (Monthly Income Account) Rules, 1987. It also failed to consider that the 4 cheques dated 30.1.2006 were lost in transit and
(6)
were never debited in the MIS Account and, therefore, a different cause of action accrued to the respondents/ complainants for this gross remiss. The instant matter relates to payment of bonus under Monthly Income Savings Scheme for which cheques nos.7464016 to 7464019 were tendered on 1.3.2006 on which date no bonus was payable as per government orders. The judgment and order passed by the Forum below is factually incorrect and legally misconceived and, therefore, can not be allowed to sustain. Consequently, the appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated 4.11.2008 is liable to be set aside.
ORDER
The appeal is allowed and the judgment and order dated 4.11.2008, passed by the Ld. DCDRF, Mathura in complaint case No.220 of 2006 is set aside. No order as to costs. Certified copy of the judgment be provided to the parties in accordance with rules.
(A.K. Bose) (Bal Kumari)
Presiding Member Member
Jafri PA II
Court No.4
