Date of Filing:01.06.2017   

                                                                                     Date of Order:22.10.2018

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – I, HYDERABAD

P r e s e n t­

HON’BLE Sri P.Vijender, B.Sc. L.L.B.  PRESIDENT

HON’BLE Smt. D.Nirmala, B.Com., LLB., MEMBER

Monday, the 22^nd day of October, 2018

C.C.No.223/2017

Between

Smt. Vyakarnam Rajyalakshmi,

W/o. V.Venudhara Sastry,

Aged : 61years, Plot 7 & 8,

Street No.20, Sharada Nagar,

Phase IV, Vanastalipuram,

Hyderabad – 500070. Telangana State,

Cell No.97015 04449, 90599 14962                                                     ……COMPLAINANT

And

Sr. Supdt., of Post Offices,

Hyderabad South East Division,

Hyderabad – 500002

(At Hyderabad Jubilee Head Post Office)

Phone No.040 23463800/802/805

Rep. by Sr. Superintendent.                                                                ....OPPOSITE PARTY

Counsel for the complainant          : Sri I.V.Prabhakara Rao

Counsel for the Opposite Party       : Sri P.Narayana

O R D E R

(By Hon’ble Sri P.Vijender, B.Sc., LL.B., President on behalf of the bench)

            This complaint is preferred under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency of service by the Opposite Party and inconsequence of it       a direction to pay the interest of Rs.1,04,115/- on the deposit amount of Rs.8,49,000/- made by the complainant.

1. The Complainant’s case in brief is that: She made a deposit of Rs.8,49,000/- with the Opposite Party in Senior Citizen Savings Schemes on different dates commencing from 08.09.2015 to 01.01.2016.  The Opposite Party paid quarterly interest on the respective deposits till September, 2016 thereafter, Post Master, Sharadanagar rang up her on 03.01.2017 and asked to close the accounts stating that, all the four (4) accounts were opened in contravention of rules as she had not completed 60 years of age as on the date of opening the accounts as such, she is not eligible to open the accounts under Senior Citizen Saving Scheme.  It is further informed to her that, interest paid up to 30.09.2016 amounting to Rs.67,505/- will be deducted.
2.              In the applications there is no mention that, the persons who have completed 60 years age are only or eligible to open Senior Citizen Savings Scheme.  The complainant was under the impression that, women on completion of 58 years of age ought to be considered as senior citizen as in the case of Railway berth reservation  hence, opened Senior Citizen Saving account. 
3.            The Opposite Party should have objected at the time of opening of the accounts.  Had it objected she would have deposited the amounts in monthly income schemes.  The complainant addressed letter on 05.01.2017 and 10.02.2017 to Senior Superintendent, Post Offices requesting to treat the deposits under monthly income scheme and recover only difference of the interest.  She received reply dated 10.03.2017 from Post Master informing her that,   Senior Superintendent, Post Office asked to close her accounts as they were opened in contravention of rules.  She met Assistant Post Master General, Head Quarter Region, Hyderabad and Appealed by a letter dated 18.03.2017 requesting to treat deposit under MIS and deduct only.  The said application was forwarded to Senior Superintendent of Post Office who once again wrote a letter to her to close the accounts.  The mistake in on the part of the Opposite Party in accepting the deposits under Senior Citizen Saving Scheme.  Hence, the Department is not justified to recover total interest paid so far.  The Department having kept an amount of Rs.8,49,000/- with it from the respective dates of deposit cannot deny interest to her and it is against natural justice.  As a last resort she has submitted all the four (4) pass books for closure of accounts on 05.01.2017 with an Appeal to bear half of the interest by the Department and deduct remaining half of from her.  For that Senior Superintendent, Post Office addressed a letter on 18.05.2017 stating that, there is no provision of allowing the claim by sharing interest paid on Senior Citizen Saving Scheme for accounts opened irregularly.  The Department deducted total interest paid and refunded an amount of Rs.7,81,495/- on 17.05.2017.  The interest paid and deducted was up to 30.09.2016.  If she is not eligible for the interest @ 9.3% under Senior Citizen Saving Scheme she should have been paid interest atleast at 8.4% under MIS from the respective dates of deposit to the dates of refund.  If interest is calculated under MIS from the date of deposits till the date of refund, it works out at Rs.1,04,105/-.  Hence, the present complaint to pay the said interest, compensation at Rs.5,000/- and cost of the complaint at  Rs.5,000/-. 
4.             Resisting the complainants claim Opposite Party filed a written version and the substance of the same is that, the complainant opened four (4) Senior Citizen Saving Scheme accounts for different amounts during the period from 08.09.2015 to 01.01.2016 Sub-Post Master, Sharadanagar, by letter dated 04.01.2017 reported that, the complainants accounts were opened in contravention of rules. The complainant submitted a representation on 05.01.2017 to Opposite Party intimate that, she has not hidden her date of birth and clearly mentioned the same in all the applications submitted for opening the Senior Citizen Saving Scheme accounts and that she was under impression that women who completed 50 years of age are treated as Senior citizen as in Railway berth reservation and requested to convert the accounts to MIS from the respective dates and adjust interest accordingly.  She was replied by letter dated 10.03.2017 asking her to close the accounts and attend the Post Office for the said purpose.  She also requested by a letter dated 11.05.2017 to bear the half of the interest by the department and remaining half of by herself and it was replied by letter dated 18.05.2017 informing that there was no provision allowing the claim by sharing interest paid to the accounts opened irregularly.  The complainant’s accounts were closed on 17.05.2017 under the rules by refunding principal amount after deducting the interest paid to every quarter.
5.             In similar circumstances, the Hon’ble Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra State in the orders dated 26.08.2008 in F.A.No.568/2008 out of orders in C.C.No.594/2007 between the Sub-Post Master, Miraz Vs. Sri Gabrial Balasab Mohite stated that, “relying upon judgments of : Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Post Master, Durgamitta, H.P.O.,   Nellore Vs. Ms. Raja Prameelamma in SLP (Civil) No.38/1995 reported in 1998(009)-SCC-0706-SC” held that: though there will be a contract between the Postal Department and the person making investment in the Post Office Schemes it would be in terms of the scheme notified by the government of India, Ministry of Finance.  If, investment is made contrary to the scheme floated by the Government of India such contract could not be binding on the government of India being unlawful and void.  The irregularly opened of accounts by depositor will not bind on the Postal Department to pay interest to the depositor who opened irregular account under Senior Citizen Savings Scheme -2004.  Therefore, depositor is not entitled to get any interest on the deposit since accounts itself was irregular in nature.  Therefore, there is no cause of action for the complainant filed this complaint.  Since, complainant’s accounts were closed as they were opened irregularly there is no provision to pay any kind of interest to the complainant as claimed by her.  Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.           
6.              In enquiry stage the complainant has got filed her evidence affidavit and substance of the same is in tune with the complaint averments.  She has got exhibited twelve (12) documents.  Similarly, for the Opposite Party the evidence affidavit of one Mr. Radha Krishna stated to be Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Hyderabad, South East Division is filed and he has got exhibited ten (10) documents.  Most of the documents filed for both sides are one and same and infact the contents of documents filed for both sides are not in dispute.  

7. Now the point for consideration: 

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party to the Complainant ?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the amounts claimed in the complaint?
3. To what relief?

8. Point No.1 & 2: It is not in dispute that, the complainant had opened four (4) Senior Citizen Savings Scheme accounts with Opposite Party during the period of 08.09.2015 to 01.01.2016 and total deposit made by her was Rs.8,49,000/- and she was paid total interest in terms of the scheme till 30.09.2016.  Thereafter, she received a telephone call from Post Master ask that close all the four (4) accounts.  The complainant was further informed that, the interest paid till 30.09.2016 amounting to Rs.67,505/- will be deducted from the deposit amount of Rs.8,49,000/-.  Similarly, it is not in dispute that, the complainant has not attained the age of 60 years as on opening of four Senior Citizen Savings Scheme accounts.  It appears after payment of interest in terms of the scheme the account Application Forms were scrutinized, then it comes to light that the complainant was not eligible to open the Senior Citizen Savings Scheme accounts hence opening of those accounts were in contravention of rules under the scheme.  Hence, she was asked to close the accounts and the total deposit made by under the four (4) accounts was refunded after deducting the interest paid till 30.09.2016.  As evident from the documents placed on record that the complainant request to that the deposits to monthly income scheme and deduct the difference of interest while refunding the deposit.  The said request to pay the interest even under the savings account or to share 50% interest of it by the department but same was not aceeded.
9.           One of the plea taken by the complainant is in the Application meant for opening the Senior Citizen Savings account there is no mention that, only the persons who have completed 60 years of age are eligible to open the account.  That, apart she has got mentioned her date of birth in the application and was under the impression that in case of women after completion of 58 years age they will be treated as senior citizen as in the case of railways birth reservation.  It is also the complaint’s plea that, at the time of opening of the first senior citizens savings account on 08.09.2015 the concern person of the Department ought to have rejected it and ground that, she is not eligible to open the account if, it was rejected at the first instance itself after verifying her date of birth she would not have opening the other three accounts.  Hence, having been allowed her to open four senior citizens savings accounts the Opposite Party cannot deny interest even under the monthly income savings or under the savings account and it amounts to deficiency of service.  When the very opening of account of the senior citizens savings account by the complainant is in the contravention rules the Department is under no obligation to pay the interest at any rate.   
10.                         The Department proceeded in closing the accounts of the complainant in accordance with the rules.  The Department, cannot be asked to continue the accounts or convert the accounts under monthly interest scheme or to bear with the half of the interest by itself.  Closing of senior citizens savings accounts which are opening in contravention of the rules does not amounts to deficiency of service.  When the interest amount was paid quarterly on the amounts deposited under the senior citizens savings account is in contravention of the rules, the department has right to recover the same.  So absolutely there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party to the complainant. 
11.       In an identical case the Hon’ble Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra in F.A.No.568/2008 out of orders in C.C.No.594/2007 between the Sub-Post Master, Miraz Vs. Sri Gabrial Balasab Mohite held that, If, investment is made contrary to the scheme floated by the Government of India such contract could not be binding on the government of India being unlawful and void.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Post Master, Durgamitta, HPO., Nellore Vs. Ms. Raja Prameelamma in SLP (Civil) No.38/1995 reported in 1998(009)-SCC-0706-SC held that: though there will be a contract between the Postal Department and the person making investment in the Post Office Schemes it would be in terms of the scheme notified by the government of India, Ministry of Finance.  If, investment is made contrary to the scheme floated by the Government of India such contract could not be binding on the government of India being unlawful and void.    In the present case also the all four accounts opened by the complainant are irregular.  Since she did not attain the age of Senior citizen and therefore, not entitled to get any interest on the deposit and since, the accounts themselves were irregular in nature, accordingly the point is answered against the complainant.        
12. Point No.3  : In the result,  the complainant is dismissed.  No order as to costs.

           Typed by Typist, corrected and pronounced by us on this the 22^nd day of October, 2018.

MEMBER                                                                                           PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 PW1                                                                                              DW1

Smt. Vyakarnam Rajyalakshmi                                            Mr. Radha Krishna,

                                                                                               Senior Superintendent

                                                                                                       of Post Office,

Exs. filed on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex.A1: is original letter, dt.05.01.2017.

Ex.A2: is original letter, dt.10.02.2017.

Ex.A3: is original reply letter, dt.10.03.2017.

Ex.A4: is original letter, dt.22.03.2017.

Ex.A5: is original reply letter, dt.27.03.2017.

Ex.A6: is original reply letter, dt.11.05.2017.

Ex.A7: is original reply letter, dt.18.05.2017.

Ex.A8: is original SCSS A/C. 9087019262 closed passbook, 28.11.2015.

Ex.A9: is original SCSS a/c. 9087019505 closed passbook.

Ex.A10: is original SCSS a/c. 9087019505 closed passbook.

Ex.A11: is original SCSS a/c. 9087019592 closed passbook.

Ex.A12 is original SCSS a/c. 9087014100 closed passbook.

Exs filed on behalf of the Opposite party

Ex.B1: is copy of letter dated 04.01.2017 of Sub Postmaster, Sharadanagar.

Ex.B2: is copy of representation dated 05.01.2017 of the complainant.

Ex.B3: is copy of representation dated 10.02.2017 of the complainant.

Ex.B4: is copy of letter dated 10.03.2017 of Sub Postmaster, Sharadanagar.

Ex.B5: is copy of reply given by the OP dated 27.03.2017.

Ex.B6: is copy of representation dated 11.05.2017 of the complainant.

Ex.B7: is copy of reply given by the OP dated 18.05.2017.

Ex.B8: is copy of Form A i.e., account opening forms.

Ex.B9: is copy of Gazettee notification dated 02.08.2004 containing the Rule 12 of Senior Citizen Schemes Rules, 2004.

Ex.B10: is copy of Hon’ble Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra State orders dt.26.08.2008 in F.A.No.568/2008 in C.C.No.594/2007.

MEMBER                                                                                           PRESIDENT