DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 150 of 2.5.2017

                                      Decided on:           22.2.2018

Harnek Singh aged about 80 years son of  Late Sh.Joginder Singh resident of House No.10, Dhaliwal Colony, Near Jagdish Ashram, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Senior Post Master, Post Office, Govt. Medical College, Patiala.
2. Senior Superintendent, Head Post Office, Patiala.
3. Union of India through Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Communication, New Delhi.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

                                      Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member                              

ARGUED BY:

                                      Sh.M.L.Sharma,Advocate, counsel for complainant.

                                      Sh.Gurmeet Singh Dhaliwal,Advocate, counsel for OPs.                                    

 ORDER

                                    SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

Sh.Harnek Singh, complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.).

2.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that  he and his wife late Smt.Jasmer Kaur, opened the following joint accounts and deposited the amount jointly in Sr.Citizen Scheme from time to time  with OP No.1.

It is stated that the complainants were receiving interest of Rs.2250/-after three months on every Rs.1,00,000/-on the amount deposited in the above said scheme. During the deposit of the above said amounts, it was never disclosed by the OPs that deposit or accounts were not as per policy and were above the upper limit. It is stated that wife of the complainant smt.Jasmer Kaur expired on 11.6.2013.The complainant informed the OPs No.1 and  2. He also submitted the death certificate of his wife  with the OPs alongwith duly filled and signed requisite forms.After receiving the death certificate  of Smt.Jasmer Kaur, OPs told the complainant that accounts under the above said scheme were individual account and Jasmer Kaur was as a spouse  and the amount deposited in the accounts under the Senior Citizen Savings Scheme was above the limit of Rs.15 lacs. It was also told by the OPs that the accounts, amounting to Rs.14lacs would be closed and the interest paid on it would be recovered. Some portion of principal amount would be deducted  and also would close the joint accounts to the complainant.OPs asked the complainant to close the accounts to Rs.14,00,000/-otherwise they would close the same at their own level. The complainant being the joint account holder and legal heir of Jasmer Kaur, told the OPs to close the account Nos.10200115, 10200118,10200122, 10200128 and 10200162.It was never disclosed by the Postal department that the deposit was above the limit. As such recovering the amount paid as interest is illegal. The OPs closed the account No.10200115 on maturity and paid the amount accordingly. Accounts No.10200118, 10200122, 10200128 and 10200162 were also closed by the OPs and transferred the amount of Rs.9,89,564/- against the deposit of Rs.13,00,000/- after deducting 1% and 1.5%, in saving account No.258046 as per following details:

It is stated that the aforesaid deduction of Rs.3,10,436/- against the deposit of Rs.13,00,000/- is  against the rule 15 and 1 6 of Chapter 7 of Senior Citizedn Saving Scheme. As per rule 9 of the said scheme deduction of  1% and 1.5% may be made in the cases of closure by the depositor himself. No deduction in case of death could be made in case of premature closure of account. The deductions made by the OPs is totally against the rules of the above said scheme. There is thus deficiency of service on the part of the parties which caused mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant. Hence this complaint with the prayer for  giving a direction to the OPs to refund the wrongly deducted amount of Rs.3,10,436/-  alongwith interest @ 9%. The OPs may also be directed to pay Rs.100000/- as compensation and Rs.7500/- as litigation expenses. Any other relief which this Forum may deem fit may also be granted to the complainant.

3.       On being put to notice, the OPs appeared and filed their written version taking preliminary objections that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has concealed the material facts from the Forum as he has filed a civil suit No.741 of 23.12.2013 and has withdrawn the same on 17.4.2017 from the court of Civil Judge, Jr.Division, Patiala.In that suit no permission was granted to file the present complaint; that the complaint is hopelessly barred by time as the cause of action accrued to the complainant in the year 2011 and the present complaint has been filed in the year 2017. On merits it is stated that the complainant had opened the aforementioned accounts in Sr.Citizon Scheme from time to time. On checking the accounts it was found that all the accounts were opened in the name of the complainant and his wife Smt.Jasmer Kaur was as spouse. It is stated that as per rule 172(20)(3) of POSB Manual Volume 1, in Sr.Citizen Scheme, “Both the spouses can open individual or joint account with each other with the maximum deposit upto Rs.15lacs, provided both are individual eligible to invest under the relevant provision of rules governing the scheme”.Sh.Harnek  Singh deposited Rs.29,00,000/- under this scheme jointly with his wife. It is also made clear in rule 172(20) (2) of POSB Manual Volume-1, that, “ In case of joint account the whole account of investment in the account under the scheme is attributed to the Ist applicant/depositor only .The question of any share of the 2^nd applicant/joint account holder, therefore, does not arise”.The complainant was told that the accounts of Rs.14,00,000/-were excess opened in his name which were in contravention of rules. The complainant was explained in detail that accounts amounting to Rs.14,00,000/-were to be closed and interest paid to him would be recovered as mentioned in rule 172(15) of POSB Manual Vol.1 also in Gazettee notification issued by Gov t. of India Ministry of Finance, New Delhi dated 2.8.2004. Moreover,  the complainant has also given a declaration that he had understood the Senior Citizen Scheme rules and would abive by the said rules. He was convinced and ready to close the account No.10200115 amounting to Rs.100000/- and was closed on 10.7.2013 on its maturity.He also closed account No.10200162 amounting to Rs.800000/-on 17.7.2013. A cheque No.985021 dated 17.7.2013 for Rs.671439/- was given to the depositor after deducting interest paid utp to date and 1.5% on premature closure.Again three SCSS accounts No.10200118, 10200122 and 10200128 amounting to Rs.300000/-, 100000/- and Rs.100000/- respectively were closed on 18.7.2013 and a cheque No.985059 dated 18.7.2013 for Rs.318125/- was given to the depositor after deducting interest paid upto date and 1% deduction on premature closure. It is stated that on 22.7.2013, Saving Bank Control Organization (SBCO) Patiala raised objection and ordered to refund the amount deducted on premature closure on SCSS accounts No.10200162, 10200118, 10200122 and 10200128 on 17.7.2013 and 18.7.2013 respectively. Accordingly  the amount of Rs.17000/- refunded to the depositor on 24.7.2013 by cash. The amount was deducted from the accounts of Sh.Harnek Singh being the accounts were in his name and not from the account of Smt.Jasmer Kaur .There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. After denouncing all other averments made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.

4. On being called to do so, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C13 and closed the evidence of the complainant.

The ld. counsel for the OPs has tendered in evidence , Ex.OPA, affidavit of Sh.Ujagar Singh, Supdt. Of Post Office alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP14 and close the evidence of the OPs.

5. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
6. From the copies of application forms Exs.C1 to C9/ Exs.OP5 to OP12 and OP14, it is evident that the complainant had opened various joint accounts worth  Rs.29lacs, in his name and in the name of his spouse late Smt.Jasmer Kaur, with the post office, under the Sr. Citizen Saving Scheme. On perusal of Post Office Saving Bank Manual-1, Chapter 7, Sr. Citizen Saving Scheme, Ex.C11/OP3, it is evident that as per rule 172 (2) a person can open an account with the Post Office  in individual capacity or jointly with spouse . It is not necessary for the spouse to be of 60 years or 55 years, as the case may be. There is no age bar limit for the 2^nd applicant/joint holder(spouse). In case of joint account, the account may be either joint A type or joint B type. This may be indicated on the top of the application form. As per rule 172(7) and gazette notification dated 21.8.2004 issued  by the Govt. of Punjab, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi, an individual may open one or more accounts in the multiple of Rs.1000/-subject to a maximum of Rs.15 lacs.The deposits made by the depositors shall be restricted to the retirement benefits received by them or rupees fifteen lacs, whichever is lower. Deposit can be made by cash if the account is to be opened for less than Rs.11 lacs”. In rule 172(15), it has categorically been mentioned that whenever it comes to the notice of the post office that an account has been opened in contravention of these rules, the account shall be closed immediately and the deposit in the account, after deduction of the interest, if any, paid on such deposit, shall be refunded to the depositor. In no case should a post office open account exceeding the ceiling limit”. From the aforesaid applications, it is evident that the complainant has given a declaration that he had understood the Senior Citizen Saving Scheme rule and abide by the said rules and letter and spirit. It may be stated here that as the amount deposited by the complainant exceeds the ceiling limit of Rs.15lac, therefore, he closed some accounts which were opened in contravention of the scheme and post office had already refunded the amount as per Rules of the scheme. As such the complainant has no occasion to agitate the matter  at this stage and the complaint filed by him  is liable to be dismissed. Even the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation because the OPs have refunded the amount to the complainant in the year 2013. As such the cause of action accrued to the complainant against the OPs in the year 2013 and if he had any grievance against them then he could have filed the complaint  against the OPs within two years  from the date of accrual of cause of action, as per Section 24A of the Act and not at this belated stage. In this view of the matter, we dismiss the complaint without any order as to costs. Certified copy of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under the rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the  Record Room.     

ANNOUNCED

DATED:22.2.2018

                                                                             NEENA SANDHU

                                                                                       President

                                                                             NEELAM GUPTA

                                                                                       Member