Per Shri S.R. Khanzode – Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member:

(1)          This group of appeals is disposed of by this Common order since they involved identical facts and common questions of law. 

In Appeal No.462/2010 challenge is made to impugned order dated 30/03/2010, passed in Complaint No.1732 of 2009, Uday Prabhakar Paranjape V/s. Branch Manager, State Bank of India, by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangli.

In Appeal No.463/2010 challenge is made to impugned order dated 30/03/2010, passed in Complaint No.1836 of 2009, Jagdish Mallikarjun Karale V/s. Branch Manager, State Bank of India, by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangli.

In Appeal No.675/2010 challenge is made to impugned order dated 18/05/2010, passed in Complaint No.1890 of 2009, Shri Totaram Bhojraj Lulla(HUF) V/s. Branch Manager, State Bank of India, by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangli.

In Appeal No.676/2010 challenge is made to impugned order dated 18/05/2010, passed in Complaint No.1916 of 2009, Shri Dattatraya Pandurang Dandekar V/s. Branch Manager, State Bank of India, by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangli.

In Appeal No.677/2010 challenge is made to impugned order dated 18/05/2010, passed in Complaint No.1917 of 2009, Shri Shripad Pandurang Dandekar V/s. Branch Manager, State Bank of India, by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangli.

In Appeal No.678/2010 challenge is made to impugned order dated 18/05/2010, passed in Complaint No.1922 of 2009, Shri Pravinchandra Ratilal Shah V/s. Branch Manager, State Bank of India, by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangli.

In Appeal No.679/2010 challenge is made to impugned order dated 18/05/2010, passed in Complaint No.1944 of 2009, Shri Shrigopal Rajaram Sarada V/s. Branch Manager, State Bank of India, by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangli.

In Appeal No.680/2010 challenge is made to impugned order dated 18/05/2010, passed in Complaint No.1945 of 2009, Shri Suryaprakash Rajaram Sarada V/s. Branch Manager, State Bank of India, by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangli.

In Appeal No.681/2010 challenge is made to impugned order dated 18/05/2010, passed in Complaint No.2023 of 2009, Shri Rakeshkumar Lambchand Mehta V/s. Branch Manager, State Bank of India, by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangli.

In Appeal No.682/2010 challenge is made to impugned order dated 18/05/2010, passed in Complaint No.2024 of 2009, Shri Rajan Virchand Shah V/s. Branch Manager, State Bank of India, by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangli.

In Appeal No.683/2010 challenge is made to impugned order dated 18/05/2010, passed in Complaint No.2025 of 2009, Shri Rakeshkumar Labhchand Mehta V/s. Branch Manager, State Bank of India, by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangli.

In Appeal No.684/2010 challenge is made to impugned order dated 18/05/2010, passed in Complaint No.2102 of 2009, Shri Purushottam Mohalal Sarada V/s. Branch Manager, State Bank of India, by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangli.

In Appeal No.718/2010 challenge is made to impugned order dated 18/05/2010, passed in Complaint No.1943 of 2009, Dwarkadhish Rajaram Sarada V/s. Branch Manager, State Bank of India, by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangli.

In Appeal No.719/2010 challenge is made to impugned order dated 18/05/2010, passed in Complaint No.1946 of 2009, Dwarkadhish rajaram Sarada V/s. Branch Manager, State Bank of India, by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangli.

(2)          Heard parties present and perused the record.

(3)          In the instant case undisputed facts are that Respondent/original Complainants had opened P.P.F. account under Public Provident Fund Act, 1968, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’.  Said scheme is implemented through facilitators like State Bank of India, Indian Post etc.  It is Central Government Scheme, governed by the statutory provisions, supra.  In the instant case P.P.F. accounts of respective Complainants were opened with the State Bank of India, Sangli Branch.  As per the instructions received covering change in policy, existing HUF Accounts opened before 13.05.2005 were directed to be continued till maturity only and thereafter period thereof was not to be extended and further no interest was allowed for the period after the date of maturity over those deposits made or accumulated funds under the said scheme in the respective accounts.  Further, when after maturity, belatedly, the Complainants had withdrawn their monies from the accounts of P.P.F., interest would be payable only upto date of maturity.  If the interest is shown as credited contrary to these instructions, in the pass book, then it is not to be taken into account while disbursing the payment.  Interest is accordingly not paid. Therefore, these consumer complaints were filed.  Forum below was pleased to uphold the contentions of the Complainants and awarded the claim.  Opposite Party – State Bank of India feeling aggrieved thereby preferred these appeals.

(4)          The scheme is well explained in the following words by the Appellant/original Opposite Party and there is no dispute about it:

As regards P.P.F.  Scheme:

(a)        The Government has introduced various savings schemes to encourage savings of the employees and self employed persons for maintaining social security.  The Provident Fund Scheme has been introduced for salaried people.  The Public Provident Fund Scheme has been introduced for non Government employees, self employed persons to encourage savings and enjoy income tax benefits.  Even employees who contribute to other Provident Fund Account have been allowed to open the Public Provident Fund Account. 

(b)        The Public Provident fund Scheme is a Statutory Scheme of the central Government framed under the provisions of the Public Provident Fund Act, 1968.  The account can be opened in any branch of the State Bank of India and its subsidiaries or in any Head Post Office or any Selection Grade Sub Post Office or any of the Natinalised/Private Sector Banks.  The Public Provident Fund scheme 1968 was introduced in the State Bank of India on 01/07/1968.  The Public Provident Fund agency system introduced on 01/11/1969 and the subscribers were allowed to invest in P.P.F. accounts through the P.P.F. agents.  The facility of opening the account by the karta on behalf of HUF was introduced on 22/07/1985.

(c)        The Central Government is Supreme Authority of P.P.F. Scheme and the State Bank of India and Post Offices and other Nationalized Banks etc. are agents of the above schemes.  There are amendments to the Provisions of P.P.F. Scheme from time to time including various small savings scheme to restrict the scope of investment.  These amendments, clarifications, and circulars are binding on the opponent State Bank of India.

(5)          It is also not in dispute that as per the instructions received from the Central Government and the consequent instructions from Reserve Bank of India, contained in the letter-cum-circular dated 30.05.2005, H.U.F. Accounts under the P.P.F. Scheme were no more allowed and for the existing accounts it was decided to continue them till the maturity, but, thereafter they were to be discontinued and the interest was only payable upto the date of maturity and not thereafter.  Government has every right and empowerment to take policy decisions in respect of P.P.F. Scheme.  Under the circumstances, instructions given are binding to all the participants as well as to the facilitators who are responsible to implementation of the scheme on behalf of Government.

(6)         Even if the interest is wrongly shown as credited beyond the period of maturity in the passbook, those entries can be reversed since those entries are contrary to the instructions given.  There cannot be any service deficiency if the Appellant Bank acted according to those instructions which are binding upon it.  There is no breach of any statutory or contractual obligation.  Under the circumstances, the issue before us is well covered by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Post Master, Dagarmitta H.P.O., Nellore V/s. Raja Prameelamma (Ms), reported in (1998) 9 Supreme Court 776.

(7)          For the reasons stated above, we find that Forum below erred in allowing the complaint on the basis of its subjective assessment only and not taking into consideration the legal aspect thereof and thus, committed an error of law.  Impugned order cannot be supported and we hold accordingly and pass the following order:

O  R  D  E  R

  (i)          Appeal Nos.462/2010, 463/2010, 676/2010, 677/2010, 678/2010, 679/2010, 680/2010, 681/2010, 682/2010, 683/2010, 684/2010, 718/2010 and 719/2010 are allowed.

(ii)          Impugned orders passed in Consumer Complaint Nos. 1732/2009, 1836/2009, 1916/2009, 1917/2009, 1922/2009, 1944/2009, 1945/2009, 2023/2009, 2024/2009, 2025/2009, 2102/2009, 1943/2009, 1946/2009, by Forum below are quashed and set aside and in effect all the complaints stand dismissed.

(iii)          In the given circumstances, parties to bear their own costs.