BEFORE THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

HYDERABAD

F.A. 1555/2007  against C.C 45/2006, Dist. Forum, Ananthapur    

Between:

The Post Master

Headquarters Post Office

New Tower Clock

Ananthapur.                                               ***                         Appellant/

                                                                                                Op.  

And

Smt. M. Nagamma

W/o. M. Narayana

D.No. 1/169-35A

R.K. Nagar,

Ananthapur.                                               ***                         Respondent/

                                                                                      Complainant.

Counsel for the Appellants:                        Mr.  V. Vinod Kumar

Counsel for the Resp:                                 M/s. V. Gourisankara Rao.

CORAM:

                         HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT     

&

                                            SRI R. L. NARASIMHA RAO, MEMBER

TUESDAY, THIS THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER THOUSAND NINE

Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)

                                                          *****

1)                This is an appeal preferred by  opposite party postal authorities,  against the order of the Dist. Forum directing it to  refund  Rs. 22,800/-  together with interest @ 6% p.a.,  from 7.8.2000 with costs of Rs. 1,000/-.

2)                 The case of the complainant in brief is that  she made the following

deposited under Monthly Income Scheme (MIS) with the appellant post office.

While so on 17.8.2000 the appellant closed  the a/c No. 1516 opened on  4.4.1997 alleging that it was opened contrary to the rules.    The appellant having allowed  to deposit these amounts  and as she was not aware of the rules the closure of the account was illegal.    She was entitled to the amount towards interest a sum  of Rs. 22,800/-  which it  with-held.    Therefore she filed the complaint claiming Rs. 22,800/- together with interest  @ 13% p.a., with compensation and costs.

3)                 The postal authorities resisted the case.   While denying that the complainant was entitled for refund of amount towards interest alleged that  she had opened four MIS accounts  contrary to the rules.    Rule 4 of MIS  Rules, 1987 prohibits  the individuals  from depositing more than Rs. 2,04,000/- under the said scheme.   In fact the depositor has to furnish a declaration to that effect.   When the amounts were deposited contrary to rules the post office had to close  the account by deducting the interest paid monthly on the deposited amount and the commission paid to the agent.   When she had opened deposit a/c No. 1516 Dt. 4.4.1997 for Rs. 66,000/-  the total amount had exceeded Rs. 2,04,000/- by an amount of Rs. 42,000/-.  Therefore it was closed.   An amount of Rs. 42,460/- was refunded after deducting  Rs. 22,880/- towards interest paid on irregularly opened account and agent commission of Rs. 660/-  She did not object for closure of the account.   Therefore the appellant prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4)                 The complainant in proof of her case filed her affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A5 marked while the  appellant  filed Ex. B1 copy of application form for opening the disputed account. 

5)                 The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that though an amount of Rs. 66,000/- was irregularly deposited, merely on the contentions taken by the complainant  that declaration of the complainant that the total deposit in MIS account does not exceed Rs. 2,04,000/- was interpolated,  it opined that the agent did not inform the rules and therefore directed the appellant to refund  Rs. 22,800/-  with interest @ 6% p.a.,  from 7.8.2000 till the date of realization  together  with costs of Rs. 1,000/-.

6)                 Aggrieved by the said order, the Post Master, Ananthapur preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate either the facts or law in correct perspective.    It ought to have seen that the Rules governing the opening of these accounts are statutory in nature.  The contention  that the complainant was unaware nor the agent mis-led her  had no place.   Even assuming without admitting  that there was inadvertence on the part of  staff of the postal department,  the Government of India   shall not be mulcted with the amounts and it does not come under ‘ deficiency in Service’ as defined u/s 2(g) of the Consumer Protection Act as held  by the  Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in  The Post Master, Dargamitta, HPO, Nellore Vs. Ms. Raja Prameelamma reported in  (1998) 9 SCC-706.   The Dist. Forum ought not to have allowed the complaint and therefore prayed that the appeal be allowed, consequently  dismiss the complaint.

8)                 The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of facts or law in this regard?

9)                 It is not in dispute that the complainant had deposited the amounts  more than Rs. 2,04,000/-  in MIS scheme.   The Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs  vide notification Dt. 10.8.1987  under clause 4 made it clear:   

4. Opening of account :- 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 rupees two lakhs in single account and rupees four lakhs  in joint account.

The complainant for the first time alleged that her signature was obtained by the agent  without informing the above stipulation.    It is also her contention that  the application for opening the account marked as Ex. B1  about the declaration that  the deposits in the MIS accounts were not more than Rs. 2,04,000/-  was interpolated.    A perusal of it shows that under the said declaration she signed it  in English.    Her husband was also one of the signatories.  At no time  up till  the  filing of the complaint,   she alleged that such a  declaration was interpolated.    At any rate, even assuming without admitting that it was interpolated,  the complainant was bound by the rules and regulations  formulated by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs appended to Ex. A3 pass book which  she herself filed  wherein the said condition was  stipulated.   

10)               Evidently a/c No. 1516 was a deposit of Rs. 66,000/- was made  on  4.4.1997 by which date more than Rs. 2,04,000/- was deposited by her.   Since this account was irregular by virtue of the rules  an amount of Rs. 42,460/- was refunded.  This was done after closure of the account  on  17.8.2000.   Though she was aware that the account was closed on 17.8.2000, she filed the complaint  on 23.9.2005.   Though the contention of limitation was not  taken, ex-facie it looks as though it was barred by limitation.  Even otherwise  the deposit being irregular and contrary to rules  the complainant was not entitled to the amount.

11)              Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in  The Post Master, Dargamitta, HPO, Nellore Vs. Ms. Raja Prameelamma reported in  (1998) 9 SCC-706   held  that  if  NSCs were given contrary to the rules,   it does not become a contract binding the Government of India  being unlawful  and void.  It cannot be said that there was deficiency of service  either in terms of the law or  in terms of the contract as defined in section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act.    The complainant therein  had purchased six National Savings Certificates (NSCs)   wherein she was entitled to 11% interest as per the certificates.  However, the old rate of interest was not corrected in the certificate.   When the complainant claimed the interest as per the certificates the  Supreme Court observed that  the sale of  NSCs  with the terms and  conditions embodied  thereon constitutes  a contract between the  Government of India  as seller  and the holders of the NSCs.  But as this contract was contrary to the terms notified by the Government of India and this was due to inadvertence of the staff,    it does not become a contract binding  the Government of India being unlawful and void contract.     As such it is not a case of deficiency in service either in terms of the law or in terms of  the  contract  as defined in  section 2(1) (g)  of the C.P. Act. “

12)              At this juncture  it  is relevant to consider the  decision of  the Supreme Court  which considered the concept of  ‘deficiency  in service’,  and opined  as under :

          “It is evident from the definition of the term “deficiency” that it must be a fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy  in the quality, nature and manner of performance  which is required to be maintained  under  a law or  has been  undertaken to be performed  in pursuance of a contract.

In fact the notification issued by the Ministry of  Finance, Government of India  on 1.4.1987  i.e., prior to the date of issue of the certificates,  the erroneous indication of a higher rate of interest  and a higher maturity value  cannot be deemed to be a deficiency  in service with reference to the law governing the sale of National Savings Certificates.”

13)               When the deposit was made irregularly the complainant could not have claimed the amount on the ground that it was mistake on the part of the post office in allowing her to deposit.   It is impossible for the post master to check the accounts that were made by the individuals  in the post office and find out whether  it exceeded the limit  mentioned in the rules.    It is for the individual depositors to satisfy themselves with regard to the rules, and deposit as per law.   Having committed a mistake she cannot blame the other side.   At any rate in the light of decision of Supreme Court  referred to above, we are of the opinion that the appellant was justified in deducting the amount towards interest and commission paid to the agent.   The complainant is not entitled to the amount claimed in the complaint. 

14)               In the result the appeal is allowed, setting aside the order of the Dist. Forum.   Consequently the complaint is dismissed.  However, no costs.   

1)       _______________________________

PRESIDENT                 

2)      ________________________________

 MEMBER          

                                                          Dt.      22.  12.  2009.

*pnr

“UPLOAD  – O.K.”