KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.461/05 JUDGMENT DATED : 8/7/08 PRESENT:- SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER 1. Senior Postmaster, Main Post Office, Hospital Road, Ernakulam. 2. The Director, National Savings, : APPELLANTS Trivandrum. 3. The Postmaster General, Tharakandam Building, Banerjee Road, Ernakulam. Vs 1. Sivarama Krishnan, Kariparambil House, SRM Road, Kochi-18. : RESPONDENTS 2. Sathi Devi.V, Kariparambil House, SRM Road, Kochi-18 (By Adv.R.S.Kalkura) JUDGMENT SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred against the order dated 21/2/2005 of the CDRF, Ernakulam in OP No.290/04. The complaint there in was filed by the respondents as complainants against the appellants as opposite parties 1 to 3 claiming the amount deposited in the Monthly Income Scheme with the interest thereon. The opposite parties filed written version disputing the claim put forward by the complainants. They contended that the aforesaid deposit under the Monthly Income Scheme was effected in violation of the provisions contained in the notification prescribing the limit for effecting deposit under the said scheme at Rs.2,04,000/-. Thus the opposite parties justified their action in not paying the interest on the exceeded amount of Rs.1,53,000/-. But the Forum below accepted the case of the complainants and thereby directed the opposite parties to pay the complainants the amount that had been promised at the time of deposit with the interest promised at that time till the day of maturity and there after @ 6% p.a. till the date of payment. Aggrieved by the said order the present appeal is filed by the opposite parties therein. 2. We heard the learned authorized representative for the appellants/opposite parties and the learned counsel for the respondents/complainants. The learned authorized representative much relied on the notification issued under the Post Office (Monthly Income Account) Rules, 1987 and submitted that the complainants exceeded the maximum limit prescribed for effecting deposit under the Monthly Income Scheme and so the complainants as depositors are not entitled to get interest on the amount which was deposited exceeding the maximum amount of Rs.2,04,000/-. He also relied on the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Post Master, Dargamitta H.P.O., Nellore, Appellant Vs Raja Prameelamma (Ms), respondent reported in (1998 ) 9 Supreme Court Cases 706. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/opposite parties supported the findings and conclusions of the Forum below and requested for dismissal of the present appeal. He relied on the decisions rendered by the National Commission reported in II (2007) CPJ 53 (NC), III (2007) CPJ 306 (NC) and I (2007) CPJ 196 (NC). 3. The points that arise for consideration are:- 1) Whether the appellants/opposite parties can be justified in withholding the interest due to the complainants on the deposits effected under the Monthly Income Scheme on the ground that the 2nd complainant exceeded the limit prescribed for effecting deposits under the monthly income scheme? 2) Is there occurred any deficiency in service on the part of the appellants/opposite parties as alleged by the complainants? 3) Is there any sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Forum below in OP .No.290/04? 4. Points 1 to 3: - There is no dispute regarding the facts of this case. The complainants herein deposited a sum of Rs.4, 08,000/- on 6/4/98 under the Monthly Income Scheme and that the 2nd complainant along with her son, Santhosh Kumar deposited another sum of Rs.3,06,000/- on the same day under very same scheme namely Monthly Income Scheme. The deposits were effected for a period of 6 years and those 2 deposits matured on 6/4/04. It is the case of the opposite parties ( Post Office) that the 2nd complainant effected deposit exceeding the limit prescribed under the Post Office (Monthly Account) (Amendment) Rules, 1993. It is the case of the opposite parties that Rule 4 of the Post Office (Monthly Income Account) Rules as amended by the (Amendment) Rules, 1993 prescribes that a depositor may operate more than one account under these rules subject to the condition that deposits in all accounts taken together shall not exceed Rs.2,04,000/- in single account and Rs.4,08,000/-in joint account. On the other hand, the complainants would say that they effected the aforesaid amounts under the Monthly Income Scheme without knowing the limit prescribed for those deposits and that the opposite parties readily received those deposits and that the opposite parties refused to pay interest only after maturity those deposits. 5. The amount of Rs.4,08,000/ deposited by the complainants Jointly on 6/4/98 would not exceed the limit prescribed in the aforesaid rules. So, the opposite parties are bound to pay the aforesaid amount with the agreed interest accrued thereon. The other deposit of Rs.3,06,000/- was also effected on 6/4/98 jointly by the 2nd complainant Sathi Devi and her son Santhosh Kumar. There can be no doubt that the 2nd complainant’s son Santhosh kumar was eligible to make deposit of Rs.2,04,000/-. Then the balance amount would be Rs.1,02,000/-. So the excess deposit effected by the 2nd complainant can be considered as Rs.1,02,000/-. On the other hand, the opposite parties treated the excess deposit effected by the 2nd complainant at Rs.1,53,000/-. The aforesaid calculation or assessment made by the opposite parties cannot be accepted. It is to be noted that there is no dispute regarding the amount deposited by the parties. Moreover, the 2nd complainant and her son Santhosh kumar are also not having any dispute between them. So, for the calculation purpose and also for awarding interest on the deposited amount the share of the 2nd complainant in the deposit amount of Rs.3,06,000/- would come to Rs.1,02,000/- only. At the most the opposite parties can withhold the interest on the said amount of Rs.1,02,000/-. Thus, the calculation made by the opposite parties cannot be accepted. 6. It is admitted that the 2nd complainant along with her husband and son effected the aforesaid two deposits on 6/4/98. The opposite parties without any hesitation accepted those amounts deposited by the complainants and their son. The avermention the complaint would show that the complainants were not aware of the limit prescribed in the aforesaid Monthly Account (Amendment)Rules, 1993. Moreover, the opposite parties were well aware of the provisions contained in aforesaid rules. By fully knowing those provisions the opposite parties accepted the amounts deposited by the complainants and their son Santhosh kumar. There can be no doubt about the fact that there was omission and negligence on the part of the opposite parties in accepting those deposits from the complainants and their son Santhosh kumar. The opposite parties were at fault in permitting the complainants and their son to make such deposits. So, the defaulted party should not be permitted to take advantage of their own negligence or omission. It is also to be borne in mind that the opposite parties enjoyed the entire amount deposited by way of 2 deposits on 6/4/98 till the date of maturity ie., 6/4/04. The opposite parties could not be allowed to take undue advantage of the omission or negligence on the part of the complainants. The opposite parties also could not be allowed to have undue enrichment by taking the excess amount by way of deposit from the complainants. Thus, in all respects the Forum below can be justified to a greater extent in directing the opposite parties to pay the amount with the agreed/assured interest. 7. The learned authorized representative much relied on the decision reported in (1998) 9 Supreme Court 706. At the outset we have no hesitation to say that the facts in the aforesaid case have no similarity or applicability as far as the present case is concerned. In the aforesaid case (supra) it was a mistake committed by the staff of the Post Office in recording the rate of interest on the certificate. At the same time the interest rate was lesser than the one noted in the National Savings Certificate. In the present case it was not a mistake on the part of the officials of the Post Office. The opposite parties herein were fully aware of the provisions of the rules. But they were interested in getting the deposits under the Monthly Income Scheme. The principles enunciated in the decision Supra have no application in the present case. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/opposite parties cited the decision reported in I (2007) CPJ 196 (NC) (Union of India & Another, Petitioners Vs. Girija Agarwal (SMT) & Others, respondents). The facts in the said case are squarely applicable to the present case. There in also the complainants effected deposits exceeding the limit prescribed under the said scheme. Then the Hon’ble National Commission is of the view that the opposite party Union of India is liable to pay interest, on the excess deposit beyond Rs.2.04 lakhs, applicable from time to time to Post Office Savings Bank Account. We are of the view that the decision supra is more applicable to the present case. The facts in the other decisions (supra) cited by the learned counsel for the respondents have not so much application as far as the present case is concerned. So, the action of the opposite parties in totally denying the interest on a sum of Rs.1,53,000/- cannot be justified. It would amount to deficiency in service on their part. 8. In the light of the decision reported in I (2007) CPJ 106 (NC), we are pleased to modify the impugned order passed by the Forum below. Thereby the opposite parties are directed to pay interest as agreed and assured by the opposite parties on Rs.4,08,000/- which was deposited by the complainants. And the 2nd complainant is also to be paid the amount of Rs.1,02,000/- with interest at the rate applicable to the Post Office Savings Bank Account. We are following the decision in Union of India and Another Vs. Girija Agarwal & Others because of the fact that the complainant as PW1 has admitted in his evidence that he effected the deposits by knowing the limits prescribed under the Monthly Account (Amendment) Rules, 1993. So, there was some negligence on the part of the complainants also in effecting the deposits exceeding the limit prescribed under the said rules. It is made clear that the complainant’s son Santhosh kumar is entitled for the deposit amount of Rs.2,04,000/- with the agreed/assured interest without any sort of deductions. It is made clear that the 1st complainant who deposited only Rs.2,04,000/- without exceeding the limit prescribed under the aforesaid rules is also entitled to get the said amount with the interest agreed by the opposite parties. Considering the negligence aspect, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs through out. These points are answered accordingly. In the result the appeal is allowed partly. The impugned order dated 21/2/2005 passed by the CDRF, Ernakulam in OP No.290/04 is modified as indicated above. Thereby the appellants/opposite parties are directed to pay the amounts due to the 1st complainant and her Son Santhosh kumar at the rate of Rs.2,04,000/- with the agreed interest accrued thereon. The 2nd complainant Sathi Devi is entitled to get Rs.2,04,000/- with the agreed interest and the exceeded amount of Rs.1,02,000/- with interest applicable to Post Office Savings Bank Account. There will be no order as to costs. It is made further clear that this amounts will carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of maturity till the date of payment. M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER Pk.
......................SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN
......................SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR | |
