STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION,

TRIPURA

APPEAL CASE No. A/27/2015.

1. Director, Postal Services,

         Agartala, West Tripura.

2. The Postmaster

R.K. Pur Head Post Office,

Udaipur, Gomati District.

                   ….    ….    ….    ….    Appellants/Petitioners.

                   Vs

1. Smt. Kalpana Biswas,

W/o Late Anil Chandra Biswas of

Dakbangalow Road, R.K. Pur,

Udaipur, District Gomati, Tripura.

Presently residing at-

Madhya Badharghat, Milan Chakra,

A.D. Nagar, Agartala, West Tripura,

P.O. A.D. Nagar, PIN-799003.

2. Smt. Bina Das (Agent),

W/o Sri Apurba Das of

Chhanban, P.O. Radhakishorepur,

Udaipur, Gomati District,

                              ….    ….    ….    ….    Respondents/Opposite Parties.

PRESENT

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.BAIDYA,

PRESIDENT,

STATE COMMISSION

MRS. SOBHANA DATTA,

MEMBER,

STATE COMMISSION.

MR.NARAYAN CH. SHARMA,

MEMBER,

STATE COMMISSION.

For the Appellants             :         Mr. Sujit Kr. Banerjee, Adv.

For the Respondent No.1    :         Mr. Debashis Laskar, Adv. Abhijit Gan Chaudhury, Adv.                      and Ms. Susmita Singh, Adv.

For the Respondent No.2    :         Mr. Sujit Chandra Majumder, Adv.

Date of Hearing       :         20.01.2016 and 06.02.2016.

Date of delivery of Judgment:       29.02.2016

J U D G M E N T

S. Baidya, J,

This appeal filed under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on 15.10.2015 by the appellants-Director, Postal Services, Agartala, West Tripura and the Postmaster, R.K. Pur Head Post Office, Udaipur, Gomati District is directed against the judgment dated 16.09.2015 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (in short District Forum), West Tripura, Agartala, in case No.CC-72/2014, whereby Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint filed under section 12 of the C. P. Act directing the opposite party nos. 1 & 2, the appellants herein, to pay interest at the contractual rate to the complainant on the accounts which exceeded the limit and to be refunded from the date of deposit till 20.01.2014 when the Competent Authority closed the irregular accounts and in addition, the said opposite parties have also been directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment with Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation within 3 (three) weeks of the receipt of the copy of the judgment, failing which the amount payable will carry interest @12% per annum till the payment is made in full.    

2. The case of the appellants, as narrated in the memo of appeal, in brief, is that the respondent No.1 Smt. Kalpana Biswas filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the Ld. District Forum against the present appellants and the respondent No.2 Smt. Bina Das (Agent). It is also stated that the complainant had invested money in Post Office Monthly Income Scheme at R.K. Pur Head Post Office jointly with her husband Late Anil Chandra Biswas in 4 (four) number of joint accounts bearing nos.13031-13034 and another 4 (four) number of single accounts in her name bearing nos.14032-14035 and the complainant opened the above mentioned 8 (eight) numbers of MIS Account by using the same CIN (Customer Identification Number) allotted by the Post Office and the complainant i.e. the respondent No.1 herein, received monthly interest regularly till 07.12.2013.
3. It is also alleged that on 20.01.2014 the R.K. Pur Head Post Office closed the 4 (four) nos. of MIS single accounts bearing No.14032-14035 after deducting admissible interest. It is also alleged that at the time of opening the aforesaid MIS Account neither the agent i.e. the respondent No.2 nor the postal staff of the R.K. Pur Head Post Office informed her as to the maximum limit of investment under MIS account, but the complainant i.e. respondent No.1 herein, had withdrawn her monthly interest of all MIS accounts lying in joint and single accounts on the same day of every month continuously for 2 years 9 months from the counter of R.K. Pur Head Post Office.
4. It is also alleged that the postal staff never raised any question as to the exceeding of maximum limit of investment under MIS account, but  after closure of 4 (four) nos. of MIS single account, the said R.K. Pur Head Post Office issued 2 (two) cheques bearing nos.283067 and 283068 dated 20.01.2014 for Rs.5,85,000/- and Rs.73,643/- respectively. It is also alleged that the complainant herself closed two nos. of MIS joint accounts bearing nos.13031 and 13032 under threat, but due to negligence of the postal staff of the R.K. Pur Head Post Office, she suffered financial loss to the tune of Rs.4,90,000/-, besides mental agony and harassment caused by the negligence and deficiency in rendering service on the part of the post office.
5. It is also alleged that the present appellants as opposite parties contested the complaint by filing a joint written objection, stating inter alia, that the MIS accounts were opened on the basis of declaration furnished by the investors i.e. respondent No.1 herein, who executed the written undertaking in the account opening forms to the effect that the investments are within the prescribed limit as per rule, and the excess amount of money invested by the complainant and her husband in joint and single MIS accounts exceeded the maximum limit as prescribed by rule and accordingly, after closure of the 4 (four) number of MIS single accounts, 2 (two) cheques for Rs.6,58,643/- were sent to the complainant with a forwarding letter dated 21.01.2014 wherein the reasons for closing the accounts were clearly stated and as such, there was no negligence and deficiency in rendering service on the part of post office towards the complainant in any manner.
6. It is also alleged that the O.P.No.3 i.e. respondent No.2 herein, also filed a written objection stating that the complainant invested the money in MIS accounts being satisfied with the terms and conditions stipulated in the rules and she being a postal agent has no role to play in the matter.   
7. It is also stated that the Ld. District Forum considering the pleadings of the parties and the evidences passed the impugned judgment dated 16.09.2015, but thereby being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellants has preferred the instant appeal on the grounds that the Ld. Forum erred in law in deciding the case, that the Ld. Forum wrongly directed to pay the interest at the contractual rate, that as per MIS Scheme the excess deposit beyond the prescribed limit will be refunded with the Post Office Savings Bank rate of interest to the depositor, that the Ld. Forum failed to appreciate that the claimant is only entitled to get the interest at the POSB (Post Office Savings Bank) rate upon the excess deposit beyond the prescribed limit, that the impugned judgment allowing the contractual rate of interest upon the excess deposit is bad in law and liable to be set aside and hence, the instant appeal has been preferred.

Points for Consideration

8. The points for consideration are (i) whether the Ld. District Forum was proper, legal and justified in allowing contractual rate of interest upon the excess deposit beyond prescribed limit under MIS Scheme by the impugned judgment and (ii) whether the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside or modified.

Decision with Reasons

9. Both the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity.
10. At the outset, we like to mention here that the respondent No.2 Smt. Bina Das (Agent) who was the O.P.No.3 in the complaint did not turn up to contest the appeal, in spite of proper service of notice upon her.
11. Going through the pleadings of the parties made out in the complaint as well as in the written objection, the evidences both oral and documentary, the impugned judgment and the memo of appeal, we find certain admitted facts. Admittedly, the complainant and her husband had opened 4 (four) number of MIS joint accounts for Rs. 9.00 lakhs with the R.K. Pur Head Post Office on 29.01.2010. It is also admitted fact that the complainant herself had opened 4 (four) number of single MIS accounts for Rs.7,50,000/- with the same post office on 03.03.2011. It is also admitted fact that all the joint and single accounts under MIS Scheme were opened with the said R.K. Pur Head Post Office by using the same CIN (Customer Identification Number) allotted by the said post office. It is also admitted fact that the opening of joint accounts under MIS Scheme with the money of the complainant and her husband for an amount of Rs. 9.00 lakhs was OK. It is also admitted fact that under Rule 4 of Post Office (Monthly Income Account) Rules, 1987, the maximum limit for depositing in joint account under MIS Scheme is at Rs.9.00 lakhs and the maximum limit in single account is under MIS at Rs.4.5 lakhs. It is also found an admitted position that the husband of the complainant died, but the complainant nowhere disclosed the date of death of her husband. It is also admitted position that the number of 4 (four) MIS joint accounts are 13031-13034 and the number of MIS single accounts are 14032-14035. It is also admitted position that the 4 (four) number of single MIS accounts were closed by the R.K. Pur Head Post Office on 20.01.2014 for contravention of Rule 4, and thereafter 2 (two) cheques for an amount of Rs.6,58,643/- in favour of the complainant Smt. Kalpana Biswas were issued after deducting the interest at the contractual rate already paid for the excess amount. It is also admitted position that the complainant after the death of her husband closed 2 (two) MIS joint accounts bearing No.13031 and 13032 by herself for bringing down the amount of investment under MIS account within legally admissible limit.
12. Admittedly, the respondent No.1-complainant supported the impugned judgment as no appeal has been preferred by the respondent No.1-complainant against that judgment.
13. Going through the impugned judgment and the grounds of appeal as narrated in the memo of appeal, it appears to us that one of the grounds of the appellants is in respect of allowing the interest at the contractual rate to the complainant on the amount which exceeded the prescribed limit and to be refunded from the date of deposit till 20.01.2014 when the Competent Authority closed the irregular accounts. Another ground of appeal is that there was no negligence and deficiency in providing service on the part of the Postal Authority towards the complainant and as such, the awarding of compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant on the ground of mental agony and harassment is unsustainable.
14. The Ld. Counsel for the appellants referring to Rule 4 of the Post Office (Monthly Income Account) Rules, 1987 as amended up-to-date submitted that a depositor may operate for more than one account under these rules subject to the condition that deposits in all accounts taken together shall not exceed Rs.4.5 lakhs in single account and Rs.9.00 lakhs in joint account. He also submitted referring to Rule 168 (6) of the Post Office Savings Bank Manuals that if a depositor has made an excess investment beyond the prescribed limit under the Post Office Monthly Income Account Scheme, the excess deposit beyond the prescribed limit will be refunded by the PM/SPM with the POSB rate of interest to the depositor and the interest already paid on the excess amount will be recovered/adjusted from the amount refunded and at the same time, the commission already paid on the excess investment to the agent will also be recovered from the agent.
15. The Ld. Counsel for the appellants referring to the provision embodied in section 3(b) (i) of the Government Savings Bank Act, 1873 also submitted that the POSB means a Post Office Savings Bank. He also submitted referring to the provision of Rule 8(h) of the Post Office (Monthly Income Account) Rules, 1987 that the rate of interest in respect of deposits made on or after first day of March, 2003 is at 8% per annum. He also submitted that the rate of interest of the Post Office Savings Bank Account has been revised and enhanced from 3.5% per annum to 4% per annum w.e.f. first day of December, 2011 as per Order No.F.No.113-01/2011-SB dated 24.11.2011 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Communications & IT Department of Posts.
16.     He also submitted that although the Ld. District Forum in the impugned judgment opined that every citizen has to abide by the rules made by the Central Government and nobody can deny to obey the rules, but the Ld. District Forum disregarding the Rule 168 (6) of the Manuals allowed contractual rate of interest on the excess investment from the date of deposit till 20.01.2014 which cannot be sustained in the eye of law being contrary to the rules as mentioned above. He also submitted that although there occurred no negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Postal Authority, but the Ld. District Forum erroneously awarded compensation on the plea of mental agony and harassment and as such, the awarding of compensation of Rs.5,000/- on the alleged ground of mental agony and harassment in favour of the complainant is unsustainable in law.  
17. Ld. Counsel for the appellants further submitted that the complainant has filed the complaint against the appellants-Director, Postal Services, Agartala, West Tripura and the Postmaster, R.K. Pur Head Post Office, Udaipur, Gomati District, Tripura- who are mere employees of the Department of Posts, and being not the legal persons within the meaning of section 2(1)(m) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, are not the service provider. He also submitted that the complaint should have been filed against the Union of India as provided under Article 300 of the Constitution of India and as such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed being bad for non-joinder of necessary party and the award passed by the Ld. District Forum should be set aside. In this regard, Ld. Advocate for the appellants has referred to a decision of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Mumbai in a judgment pronounced on 18 September, 2012 in between Mr. Digambar Pandarinath Vs Mohone (Main) Post Office and others.
18. Ld. Counsel for the appellants referring to Para 19 of the judgment passed in a case between Bulu Majumder and others (Legal Heirs) Vs Department of Post Offices pronounced on 30^th April, 2007 by the Hon’ble Guwahati High Court reported in 2007(3) GLT 113 submitted that the Court, even in the absence of any plea, while granting decree, is required to see that the suit is properly constituted and in a suit by the Department of Posts as plaintiff, the Court is to satisfy before passing the decree whether the provision of section 79 C.P.C. has been complied with, even if such plea is not taken in the written statement.
19. The Ld. Counsel for the appellants also submitted that there occurred no irregularity at the time of opening joint MIS accounts in favour of the complainant and her husband, but the irregularity occurred at the time of opening of the single MIS accounts by the complainant herself. He also submitted referring to Exhibit-A series i.e. 4 (four) applications for opening of 4 (four) MIS single accounts wherein the complainant herself made a declaration in Point No.4 to the effect that she undertakes to keep the balance in all her savings accounts single or joint at any time within the limits specified in the relevant rule. He also submitted that the complainant in Point No.5 also made a further declaration that she agrees to abide by such rules framed by the Central Government as may be applicable to the account from time to time. He also submitted that in spite of knowing the said rules, she made a declaration at the last portion of the said 4 (four) forms that she has more than one account, but not exceeding limit. He also submitted that this declaration of the complainant has misled the postal staff who acted on good faith relying on the said declaration of the complainant. He also submitted that all irregularities were caused due to said misleading and untrue statements of the complainant made in the application forms for opening the MIS single accounts and as such, it cannot be said under any stretch of imagination that the postal staff was negligent and deficient in providing service towards the complainant and therefore, the awarding of compensation in favour of the complainant by the impugned judgment cannot be sustained in the eye of law and should be set aside.
20. The Ld. Counsel for the respondent No.1 submitted that the present appellants as O.P. nos.1 & 2 in the complaint case did not raise any objection in their joint written objection concerning the alleged plea of non-joinder of Union of India as necessary party to the case. He also submitted referring to Order 1 Rule 13 of the C.P.C. that the plea of non-joinder of necessary party has to be taken at the earliest opportunity on or before issues are settled, otherwise, such plea of non-joinder of necessary party shall be deemed to have been waived. He also submitted that the proceeding before the Consumer Fora is not a suit and as such, the plea of non-joinder of necessary party as is applicable in a suit has got no application in a proceeding before the Consumer Fora. He also submitted that the present appellants as opposite parties did not raise any plea of non-joinder of necessary party in their written objection and as such, it shall be presumed that such plea of non-joinder of necessary party has been waived.  
21. The Ld. Counsel for the respondent No.1 referring to a judgment pronounced on 15^th November, 2002 by the Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.1020 of 2002 between K.M. Singh (Petitioner) Vs Senior Postmaster, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi (Respondent) submitted that almost in a similar case a complaint was lodged by K.M. Singh against the Senior Postmaster, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi without making the Union of India or the Department of Posts as party to the said case. He also submitted that the Hon’ble National Commission has been pleased to dispose of the said revision petition on merit considering of facts and circumstances of the case, although, neither the Union of India nor the Department of Posts was a party to that complaint case.
22. The Ld. Counsel for the respondent No.1 referring to the above mentioned revision petition also submitted that in the said complaint case the Ld. District Forum allowed contractual rate of interest i.e. at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount which exceeded the prescribed limit, but the Hon’ble National Commission did not interfere with the awarding of such contractual rate of interest. He also submitted that in the present case, the Ld. District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala allowed the contractual rate and as such, no illegality has been caused in allowing the contractual rate of interest in favour of the complainant by the impugned judgment. He also submitted from that standpoint that the judgment passed by the Ld. District Forum allowing contractual rate of interest over the exceeded investment from the date of deposit till the closure of the accounts i.e. till 20.01.2014 is legally sustainable and as such, the instant appeal, having no merit, is liable to be dismissed.
23. The Ld. Counsel for the respondent No.1 further submitted that it is not expected that the respondent No.1-complainant at the time of opening the single MIS accounts was aware about the rules and regulations framed by the Postal Department for opening the said accounts, but the postal staff who are engaged by the Postal Department to perform the job of opening the single or joint MIS accounts were well-aware about the said rules and regulations, but did not raise any objection at the time of opening the single MIS accounts in the name of the complainant herself, rather the postal staff allowed the complainant to open the 4 (four) single MIS accounts in her name after accepting the necessary application forms (Ext. A series) from her. He also submitted that this is nothing, but a sheer negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the postal staff resulting to the serious mental agony and harassment to the complainant for which the Ld. District Forum awarded only a meagre amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation by the impugned judgment which, though a very small amount and sustainable in law, should be affirmed and the appeal preferred by the appellants on this ground also, having no merit, should be dismissed.  
24. Going through the pleadings of the parties we find that the complaint has been lodged alleging negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the postal staff. The Post Office (Monthly Income Account) Rules, 1987 has been framed by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by section 15 of the Government Savings Bank Act, 1873. The virus or illegality of any rule framed by the Central Government mentioned above has not been challenged or questioned in the complaint. Barring few provisions mentioned in section 13(4) of the C.P. Act, 1986, no other provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to the Consumer Fora and therefore, it can be said that the plea of defect of party i.e. the suit is bad for non-joinder of Union of India as necessary party is not applicable in the proceeding before the Consumer Fora. The proceeding before the Consumer Fora under the Consumer Protection Act, 1987 is not a ‘suit’ as provided in the Code of Civil Procedure. Going through the written objection submitted by the present appellants in the District Forum, we find that no plea of non-joinder of necessary party i.e. the Union of India has been taken by the appellants as O.P. nos.1 & 2. On perusal of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble National Commission in revision petition No.1020 of 2002 referred by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1, it is found that almost in a similar case where the allegation of negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the postal staff was made in the complaint lodged against the Senior Post Master, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi, the Hon’ble National Commission has been pleased to dispose of the said revision petition on merit. In the instant case, the complaint has been lodged by the present respondent No.1 as complainant in the Ld. District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala against (i) Director, Postal Services, Agartala, West Tripura and (ii) Post Master, R.K. Pur Head Post Office, Udaipur, Gomati District, Tripura. So, considering all such facts and circumstances mentioned above, we are of the view that the Article 300 of the Constitution of India and the case-law reported in 2007 (3) GLT 113 and the decision of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Mumbai referred by the Ld. Counsel for the appellants are not applicable in the instant case. Rather, going through the frame-work of the complaint from which the Revision Petition No.1020 of 2002 arose and disposed of by the Hon’ble National Commission referred by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent No.1, we are of the view that the complaint as lodged against the O.P. nos.1 & 2, the appellants herein, alleging negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the postal staff is very well legally maintainable. Therefore, the submission made by the Ld. Counsel for the appellants in respect of the matters mentioned above, is not acceptable in law regarding the non-maintainability of the complaint before this Consumer Fora.
25. Admittedly, after opening of 4 (four) joint MIS accounts by the complainant in the name of herself and her husband for an amount of Rs.9.00 lakhs on 29.01.2010, the prescribed limit for the joint MIS account was completed. It transpires that in the next year i.e. on 03.03.2011, the complainant herself opened 4 (four) MIS single accounts again for Rs.7.5 lakhs which were totally beyond the prescribed limit of investment. There is no doubt that the complainant is legally bound to follow the rules and regulations framed by the Central Government in the Postal Department in respect of opening the MIS either single or joint account. It is needless to say that at the relevant time the maximum limit of MIS joint account was at Rs.9.00 lakhs and in case of MIS single account it was up to Rs.4.5 lakhs. It is settled law that the ignorance of law is no excuse. However, it is admitted position that all the 4 (four) joint MIS accounts and all the 4 (four) single MIS accounts were opened by using the same CIN (Customer Identification Number) given by the R.K. Pur Head Post Office.  It is expected that the efficient staff should be entrusted by the Postal Authority to perform various jobs in different counters of the post office. While opening the 4 (four) single MIS accounts in the name of the complainant Smt. Kalpana Biswas herself by using same CIN, it should come to the knowledge of the postal staff that the said depositor i.e. Smt. Kalpana Biswas already opened 4 (four) MIS joint accounts in the name of herself and her husband Anil Biswas for the maximum prescribed limit of Rs.9.00 lakhs as investment on 29.01.2010. Had the postal staff been vigilant, and not negligent, the subsequent 4 (four) MIS single accounts in the name of the complainant herself for Rs.7.5 lakhs would not have been opened on 03.03.2011. Therefore, it is palpable that the staff of R.K. Pur Head Post Office then working in the counters were negligent and deficient in service towards the complainant and such negligence and deficiency on the part of the postal staff caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant and therefore, we are of the view that the Ld. District Forum rightly awarded Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the complainant on the ground of mental agony and harassment.
26. The moot point is as to whether the rate of interest as per the Post Office Savings Bank rate or the contractual rate over the excess investment is applicable in the instant case. Going through the impugned judgment we find that the Ld. District Forum allowed interest at the contractual rate on the excess investment from the date of deposit till 20.01.2014 when the Competent Authority closed the irregular accounts. From the Rule 168 (6) of the Post Office Savings Bank Manuals issued under the authority of Director General of Posts, Government of India and Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Posts, Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, it appears “Payment of POSB interest on excess investment beyond the prescribed limit under Post Office Monthly Income Scheme:- If a depositor has made an excess investment beyond the prescribed limit under the Post Office Monthly Income Account Scheme, the excess deposit beyond the prescribed limit will be refunded by the PM/SPM with the POSB rate of interest to the depositor. The interest already paid on the excess amount will be recovered/adjusted from the amount refunded. The commission paid to the agent on the excess investment will also be recovered from the agent.” The above mentioned rule has been framed under the authority of the Government of India in the Department of Posts. Every citizen is legally bound to abide this rule and nobody can deny to obey the same. Going through the impugned judgment it appears that the Ld. District Forum also is in agreement with this view. As per Rule 168 (6), the POSB rate of interest on the amount in excess of the prescribed limit is applicable, but not the contractual rate of interest. It transpires that the Ld. District Forum by the impugned judgment allowed contractual rate of interest from the date of deposit till the closure of the irregular account on the excess investment which is not legally permissible in view of the Rule 168 (6) of the Post Office Savings Bank Manuals.
27. Regarding the grant of contractual rate of interest @12% per annum then prevailing over investment under MIS accounts, it transpires that there involved a claim for regularization of irregular accounts under monthly income scheme. The grant of such contractual rate of interest on irregular accounts was not challenged by the Postal Department either in the Appeal No.A-2146/2001 or in the Revision Petition No.1020 of 2002 and as the said contractual rate of interest was not the subject-matter in issue in the above mentioned appeal or in the revision case, there was no finding in this regard. But that does not mean that such contractual rate of interest over the excess investment is legally permissible. The Rule 168 (6) of the Post Office Savings Bank Manual stands as a legal bar in allowing such contractual rate of interest over exceeded investment. It transpires that the Postal Department granted the POSB rate of interest over the excess amount which is in conformity with the Rule 168 (6) of the said manuals. We find no illegality in granting POSB rate of interest on the excess investment in favour of the complainant-respondent No.1. That being the position, we are of the view that the awarding of the contractual rate of interest on the excess investment by the Ld. District Forum in the impugned judgment is not legally sustainable. We are of the view that the complainant-respondent No.1 is only legally entitled to get at the POSB rate of interest, and not the contractual rate of interest, on the excess investment from the date of deposit i.e. on and from 03.03.2011 to 20.01.2014 i.e. the date on which the Competent Authority closed irregular accounts in respect of 4 (four) MIS single accounts opened in the name of complainant herself. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be modified to that extent.
28. At the time of hearing the Ld. Counsel for the respondent No.1 verbally submitted before us that there is no dispute regarding the total amount of interest received by the complainant through 2 (two) cheques at the POSB rate of interest. In that view of the submission, we find no ground to enter into any matter concerning the quantum of interest allowed by the Postal Department to the complainant. Be that as it may, in view of the above, the appeal preferred by the appellants is liable to be allowed in part.
29. In the result, the appeal succeeds in part. Barring the allowing of contractual rate of interest, in lieu of POSB rate of interest, over the excess investment, the other portions of the impugned judgment dated 16.09.2015 passed by the Ld. District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala, in case No.CC-72/2014 is hereby affirmed. The O.P.nos.1 & 2, the appellants herein, are directed to pay interest at the POSB rate of interest over the excess investment to the complainant from the date of deposit i.e. on and from 03.03.2011 till 20.01.2014 i.e. the date of closure of the irregular accounts on excess investment under 4 (four) MIS single accounts in the name of the complainant herself, in lieu of contractual rate of interest awarded by the Ld. District Forum. The impugned judgment stands modified, accordingly. There is no order as to costs.