KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO:298/2008 JUDGMENT DATED:29..03..2010. PRESENT SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER 1.The Chief Postmaster General, Kerala Circle, Trivandrum. : APPELLANTS 2.The Postmaster, Kollam HPO. (By Adv:Sri.R.P.Sandeep) Vs. Sathyavruthan.K.N, Kaithakatte house, Mampally, : RESPONDENT Kandasankadavu.P.O, Trichur. JUDGMENT SHRI.M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellants were the opposite parties and the respondent was the complainant in CC:331/06 on the file of CDRF, Kollam. The complaint in CC:331/06 was filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2 in their failure to pay interest on the deposited amount of Rs.5,00,000/- by the complainant under Senior Citizens Savings Scheme. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed a joint version denying the alleged deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. They contended that the 2 accounts under the Senior Citizens Savings Scheme was opened irregularly and against the provisions of the notification dated:27/10/2004 issued by Ministry of Finance. Thus, the opposite parties justified their action in deducting the amount paid by way of interest to the complainant from the principal amount when the said accounts were closed on 25/07/2006. Thereby the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 2. Before the Forum below the complainant was examined as PW1. Exts.P1 to P4 documents were also marked on his side. From the side of the opposite parties DW1 was examined and Exts.D1 to D6 documents were marked. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below passed the impugned order dated:18th September 2008 directing the 2nd opposite party and his subordinates to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation. It was further directed to pay the said amount to the complainant with liberty to realize the same from the persons who were responsible for improper opening of the accounts with Numbers:60000054 on 20/6/2005 and account No:60000057 on 12/7/2005. It is against the said order the present appeal is preferred. 3. We heard both sides. The learned authorized representative of the appellants submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. He much relied on the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Postmaster Dargamittah HPO, Nellore Vs. Raja Prameeelamma (MS) reported in (1998) 9 SCC 706 and argued for the position that there was no contract entered into between Government of India and the complainant and that the Government cannot made answerable for the loss suffered by the complainant. It is also submitted that there was negligence on the part of the respondent/complainant in opening an irregular and improper account under Senior Citizens Savings Scheme. Thus, the appellants prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant supported the impugned order passed by the Forum below and prayed for dismissal of the present appeal. Both sides have also submitted argument notes in support of their oral submissions. 4. The points that arise for consideration are:- 1. Whether there was deficiency of service on the part of the appellants/opposite parties in permitting the respondent/complainant to invest a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- under the Senior Citizens Savings Scheme? 2. Whether the Forum below can be justified in directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.20, 000/- by way of compensation to the complainant? 5. Point Nos:1 & 2:- There is no dispute that the respondent/complainant invested a total of Rs.5,00,000/- under two accounts opened under the Senior Citizens Savings Scheme. The respondent/complainant invested a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- by opening Account NO:60000054 on 20/06/2005 and another sum of Rs.2,00,000/- by opening Account No:60000057 on 12/07/2005. Both the said accounts were opened with the 2nd opposite party, the Postmaster, Head Post office, Kollam. The said investments were made under Senior Citizens Savings Scheme. Admittedly the respondent/complainant was an employee of KMML, Kollam and he retired from service on 15/04/2005. At the time of opening the said two accounts, the respondent/complainant had completed 55 years and he was below 60 years. There is no dispute that as per the notification dated:2/08/2004 issued by Ministry of Finance vide OM No:2-8/2004-NS-II. A person retired from service and who has attained 55 years but less than 60 years can open an account under the Senior Citizens Savings Scheme subject to the condition that the account is opened within a period of 3 months of the date of receipt of retirement benefits. It is to be noted that the aforesaid notification was subsequently amended by the Notification dated:27/10/2004 by which the period of 3 months in the earlier notification was modified/reduced to one month. In the present case on hand, the respondent/complainant received his retirement benefits on 15/04/2005; But he opened the said accounts on 20/06/2005 and on 12/07/2005. So, the aforesaid two accounts were opened after the lapse of one month from the date of receipt of the retirement benefits. Therefore, the respondent/complainant was not eligible or competent to open the said 2 accounts under the Senior Citizens Savings Scheme. The aforesaid two Accounts opened under the said scheme can be treated as accounts opened against the provisions of the notification issued by Government of India. If that be so, the aforesaid accounts opened under the said scheme can be treated as one opened improperly or irregularly. 6. Admittedly, the respondent/complainant opened the said accounts under the Senior Citizens Savings Scheme on 20/06/2005 and 12/07/2005 and that he used to get interest accrued on the said amount of Rs.5,00,000/- until April 2006. It can be seen that the respondent/complainant was paid the interest on the said investment up to April 2006. The aforesaid accounts were opened with the 2nd opposite party, the Postmaster, Head Post Office, Kollam and that the 2nd opposite party released the interest accrued thereon until April 2006. It is also to be noted that the respondent/complainant opened the said accounts with the consent and permission of the 2nd appellant/2nd opposite party and his subordinate staff. There is no case for the appellants/opposite parties that the respondent/ complainant committed any sort of mal practice in getting the said accounts opened. There is also no case for the appellants/opposite parties that the said accounts were opened by exercising fraud or by concealing or suppressing any material facts. All the details regarding retirement of the complainant from service and acceptance of the retirement benefits were all disclosed to the 2nd appellant/2nd opposite party and his subordinate staff. It fully knows all those details the 2nd opposite party and his subordinate staff permitted the respondent/complainant to open the said accounts under the Senior Citizens Savings Scheme. It is to be noted that the accounts were opened through the authorized agent of the opposite parties. It is also to be noted that the authorized agent Rasmi.G.R. was acting as the agent for canvassing business for the opposite parties under the said scheme. Thus, the agent of the opposite parties canvassed the complainant to invest a portion of his retirement benefits under the Senior Citizens Savings Scheme. It is further to be noted that the complainant had also invested another portion of his retirement benefits with the 2nd opposite party under the very same scheme namely Senior Citizens Savings Scheme and that investment was made within one month of getting the retirement benefits. The opposite parties especially, the 2nd opposite party and his subordinate staff working at the Head post office, Kollam were fully aware of the details regarding the acceptance of retirement benefits by the complainant on 15/4/2005. It fully knows this fact the 2nd opposite party permitted the complainant to open the disputed 2 accounts under the said scheme. The materials on record would make it abundantly clear that the respondent/complainant being an innocent senior citizen invested his retirement benefits with the 2nd opposite party under the Senior Citizens Savings Scheme with the expectation of getting interest on the invested amount of Rs.5.lakhs. The respondent/complainant can be considered as a bonafide and innocent depositor, of amounts with the 2nd opposite party under the Senior Citizens Savings Scheme. 7. The 2nd opposite party and his subordinate staff were negligent in considering the relevant aspects especially the provisions of the amended notification dated:27/10/2004 issued by Ministry of Finance. Thus, there was lapse and omission on the part of the 2nd opposite party and his subordinate staff who were working at Head Post office, Kollam at the relevant time. The improper or irregular opening of the said two accounts under the Senior Citizens Savings Scheme happened only because of the negligence, lapse and omission on the part of the 2nd opposite party and his subordinate staff. It is also to be noted that the respondent/complainant who invested a sum of Rs.5lakhs under the Senior Citizens Savings Scheme has been getting his interest on the said investment until April 2006. It is only thereafter, the 2nd opposite party and his subordinate staff raised the objection regarding opening of the said 2 accounts under the said scheme. It is also to be noted that the 2nd opposite party raised the said objection in continuing the said accounts based on the objection raised by the inspection staff working under the 1st opposite party. The documentary evidence on record would make it clear that the complainant closed the said two accounts on 25/07/2006 as directed by the 2nd opposite party and his subordinate staff. The application submitted by the complainant on 25/07/2006 to close the said accounts would make it clear that the said request was made by the complainant as directed by the 2nd opposite party and his subordinate staff. It would also make it clear that the complainant who invested Rs.5.lakhs under the Senior Citizens Savings Scheme requested the 2nd opposite party to convert his investment or deposit under Term Deposit Scheme, So as to attract interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. Admittedly, the investment under Senior Citizens Savings Scheme would carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The complainant who was convinced about the irregularity in opening the said accounts under Senior Citizens Savings Scheme was ready and willing to convert the said deposit under Term Deposit Scheme. But the opposite parties were not amenable for that option made by the complainant. Thus, the aforesaid 2 accounts under Senior Citizens Savings Scheme was closed on 25/07/2006. 8. The complainant had received a total of Rs.45,000/- by way of interest until April 2006, at the time of closure the said accounts on 25/07/2007. The 2nd opposite party deducted the aforesaid sum of Rs.45,000/- which was paid to the complainant by way of interest up to April 2006. It is to be noted that the 2nd opposite party and his subordinate staff had no objection in opening the said 2 accounts opened by the complainant under Senior Citizens Savings Scheme; but they raised the objection only after April 2006. It is based on their objection the said two accounts were closed on 25/07/2006. But it was closed by deducting the said sum of Rs.45,000/- which was paid to the complainant by way of interest on the said investment of Rs.5.lakhs. 9. It is to be noted that the complainant could open the said two accounts under the Senior Citizens Savings Scheme only because of the negligence, lapse and omission on the part of the 2nd opposite party and his subordinate staff. There can be no doubt about the fact that the opposite parties 1 and 2 and the Government of India, Ministry of Finance enjoyed the said sum of Rs.5.lakhs which was invested by the complainant under Senior Citizens Savings Scheme. The benefits of the said irregular or improper investment were also availed by the opposite parties and the Government of India. It is to be noted that due to the negligence or omission on the part of the opposite parties, Government of India, Ministry of Finance is also benefited. It may be correct to say that the contract with respect to the investment of Rs.5.lakhs under Senior Citizens Savings Scheme was irregular and improper because of the fact that the said investment was made against the provisions of the notification issued by Ministry of Finance vide OM.No:2/8/04 NS-II dated:2/8/04 amended by notification dated:27/10/04. Thus, in the eye of law there was no existing contract. It is pertinent to note at this juncture that both the contracting parties were at fault. It is not just or proper on the part of one party to the contract in finding fault with the other party alone. Admittedly both the contracting parties were at fault. So, both the contracting parties are to be made answerable and liable to each other. It is not just or proper or fair on the part of the Government of India in taking advantage or profit out of the negligence or omission or lapse on the part of its employees. In this case, the 2nd opposite party, the Postmaster, Head Post office, Kollam and his subordinate staffs were at fault and because of their fault or negligence the complainant could open the 2 accounts under Senior Citizens Savings Scheme and thereby the complainant invested a sum of Rs.5.lakhs under the said scheme. The aforesaid investment of Rs.5.lakhs was enjoyed by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance. So, it is not fair on the part of the opposite parties to contend that the complainant alone has to suffer the consequence of the wrong or fault committed by both the contracting parties. Thus, it can be concluded that there was composite negligence on the part of the complainant and opposite parties. So, both the complainant and opposite parties have to suffer the consequences of their fault or negligence. Opposite parties are answerable for the negligence or omission on their part. It is true that the complainant who was also negligent is also liable for his negligence. The mere fact that the complainant committed some mistake or omission cannot be taken as a ground to hold that he has to suffer the entire consequence of the fault. In other words, it is not just or fair to ask the complainant to bare the entire loss on account of the negligence or lapse on the part of the opposite parties. So, this Commission is of the view that both the complainant and the opposite parties are answerable for the composite negligence on their part in opening the two accounts under the Senior Citizens Savings Scheme 10. There is no doubt about the fact that the complainant who invested Rs.5.lakhs under the said scheme was entitled to get Rs.45,000/- by way of interest, if those accounts were opened properly and in accordance with the provisions of the notification dated:2/8/2004 amended by notification dated:27/10/04. At the same time, the opposite parties and their master, the Government of India, Ministry of Finance enjoyed the said sum of Rs.5.lakhs invested under the said scheme. Thereby the Government of India enjoyed the benefit of investment of such an amount under the said scheme. There could not be any discrimination or disparity between a citizen and the Government. There is no immunity for the Government to do wrongs. The principle that “crown cannot do any wrong” is not in force. It has become obsolete. So the wrong or fault committed by the Government cannot be appreciated. In the present case on hand both the employees of the Government of India and the complainant (a senior citizen) were at fault. The Forum below has only awarded a compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant. In other words, the complainant was asked to bear the loss of Rs.25,000/- which he had received by way of interest. Thus, the Forum below asked the complainant to suffer the loss of Rs.25,000/- for his negligence. By awarding compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant, the opposite parties have gained Rs.25,000/-; Otherwise they were bound to pay a sum of Rs.45,000/- by way of interest to the complainant for the period from the commencement of the investment till April 2006. Thus, the Forum below has apportioned the compensation by considering the composite negligence on the part of the complainant and the opposite parties. 11. The authorised representative for the appellants/opposite parties much relied on the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Postmaster, Dargamitta, H.P.O, Nellore Vs.Raja Prameelamma (Ms) (Supra). The facts of the aforesaid reported case are entirely different from the facts in the present case. In the said case the rate of interest was mistakenly noted by the concerned staff of the post office. In such a circumstance it was held that the mistake committed by the Government staff cannot be taken as a ground to bind the Government of India. It is also to be noted that in that case the rate of interest on National Savings Certificate was fixed by the Government notification; but due to an inadvertent omission on the part of the clerical staff the rate of interest was shown at a higher rate. In such a situation it was held that the contract which was contrary to the provisions of the notification made by the Government of India can be treated as unlawful and void and such an inadvertent omission or mistake cannot be treated as deficiency of service. But in the present case on hand both the contracting parties committed mistake and thereby there was composite negligence on the part of the contracting parties. So, in the event of recession of the contract as the contract being unlawful and void one party to the contract cannot be allowed to take advantage of the negligence on their own part. In such a situation both the contracting parties are to be made liable and answerable for the loss suffered by each of the parties to the contract. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Forum below directing the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant is to be upheld. The Forum below has also given the liberty to the opposite parties to realize the loss to the Government by proceeding against the erring staff who were working under the 2nd opposite party/the Postmaster, Head Post Office, Kollam. But in this case, the opposite parties 1 and 2 or their master, the Government of India, Ministry of Finance have not suffered any pecuniary loss. It is to be noted that otherwise the opposite parties were liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% on the said amount of Rs.5.lakhs which was invested by the complainant under the Senior Citizens Savings Scheme. The interest would come to Rs.45,000/-. Instead of that the opposite parties are made liable to pay only Rs.20,000/-. Thus in all respects, the impugned order passed by the Forum below is to be confirmed. Hence we do so. In the result the appeal is dismissed. The impugned order dated:18/09/2008 passed by CDRF, Kollam in CC:331/06 is confirmed. As far as the present appeal is concerned, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR: MEMBER VL. |
