Date of Filing: 18.07.2008<br /> Date of Order:26.09.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2008<br /> PRESENT<br /> Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 1596 OF 2008<br /> Seethalakshmi<br /> W/o M. Sreeramanjaneya Setty<br /> “Sri Venkateswra Krupa”<br /> # 689, Laggere Road, Peenya<br /> Bangalore 560 058 Complainant<br /> V/S<br /> Senior Superintendent of Post Offices<br /> Bangalore East Division<br /> Museum Road, Bangalore Opposite Party<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. <br /> 2. The facts of the case are that the complainant has deposited an amount of Rs. 1.20 lakhs under monthly income scheme of Postal Department. The scheme provides a bonus at 10% of the principal at the end of maturity of the deposit. The deposit was made on 08.02.2006. Cheque was presented on 11.02.2006 and the same was honoured on 12.02.2006. The account was opened on 13.2.2006. Opposite party has denied for eligibility of bonus for the said deposit on the ground that deposits are not eligible for bonus for those accounts which are opened on or after 13.02.2006. The complainant states that the delay on the part of the Postal Department in presenting the cheque, the customer is deprived of the legitimate bonus right of the scheme.<br /> 3. Notice issued to opposite party. Opposite party put in appearance and presented defence version.<br /> 4. Arguments are heard.<br /> 5. On perusal of the facts there is no dispute that the complainant has deposited Rs. 1,20,000/- under monthly income scheme with the opposite party. The opposite party submitted that as per the Ministry of Finance notification dated 10.02.2006 account opened on or after 13.02.2006 will not earn bonus benefit and there is no cause of action for the complainant and requested to dismiss the complaint. The question whether the deposit will earn bonus benefit or not cannot be decided at present. The deposit amount has not been matured. The scheme for payment of bonus at 10% of the principle amount is at the end of the maturity of the deposit. Therefore, whether the deposit made by the complainant in this case is eligible for bonus benefit or not can be gone into or decided at the end of maturity of the deposit. The complaint filed at present is pre-matured one. It is unnecessary for us to give finding on the disputed aspect at this stage because no cause of action has arisen to the complainant to file the complaint. The complainant will be at liberty to agitate the matter at the end of the maturity of the deposit. We do not know what will be rules and regulations or Government circulars at the end of the maturity period. Therefore, it is better and proper for the complainant to wait till the end of the maturity period and she can fight for her rights after the end of the maturity period. With this observation present complaint deserves to be dismissed giving liberty to the complainant to agitate the matter at the end of the maturity of the deposit. In the result I proceed to pass the following:<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 6. The complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.<br /> 7. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2008. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings. <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER <br /> <br /> <br />