BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No.422-14

Date of Institution: 4.8.2014

Date of Decision: 04.05.2015

Subash Chander HUF through its Karta Sh. Subash Chander alias Subash Gupta of Moti Bazar,Katra Ahluwalia,Amritsar

Complainant

Versus

State Bank of India, Town Hall branch through its Branch Manager,Amritsar

Opposite Party

Complaint under section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Chetan Bansal, Advocate

For the Opposite Party: Sh. Talwinder Singh, Advocate.

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Subash Chander  under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he had opened PPF account No. 6286 with the opposite party on 18.3.1990. Thereafter amendment had been made to PPF Scheme , 1968 by the Ministry of Finance dated 7.12.2010 and new provision has been inserted according to which PPF account opened on behalf of HUF prior to 13.5.2005 shall be closed after expiry of 15 days from the end of the year in which initial subscription was made. In respect of those HUF accounts where the initial period of 15 years had already been completed prior to the issue of notification , such accounts were to be closed on 31.3.2011. Complainant had alleged that opposite party credited interest of Rs. 81606/- as on 31.3.2005 and outstanding credit as on 31.3.2005 in the account and the total amount came out Rs.9,01,686.60 paise. As per the notification the complainant applied for close of account on 2.3.2006 and the opposite party after crediting Rs. 6011.24 paise as interest for full year closed the account and issued cheque of Rs. 9,07,697.84 paise to the complainant. Complainant has alleged that oppposite party bank has not made payment of full interest at PPF rates on the amount of Rs. 9,01,686.60 paise which remained with the opposite party bank from 1.4.2005 to 1.3.2006 in the aforesaid HUF PPF account of the complainant. The complainant time and again approached the opposite party for payment of difference of interst, but to no avail. In June/July 2013 the complainant came through a letter dated 1.6.2011 issued by Ministry of Finance vide which they had instructed to all the banks, RBI etc to make payment of interest at PPF account of HUF, who have closed their accounts on maturity or thereafter between 13.5.2005 to 7.12.2010 before the issue of amendment. After knowing about the said letter, the complainant again approached the opposite party and requested for payment of difference of interest amount as per letter, but again the oppsotie party put the matter off under one pretext or the other . Complainant also served a legal noticve dated 20.7.2013 followed by reminder notice dated 14.10.2013 and requested for payment of difference of interest amount but to no avail . Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to make payment of difference of amount of interest on the amount in PPF account 6286. Compensation of Rs. 50000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.

2. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that complainant had opened PPF account with the opposite party and the complainant had applied on 2.3.2006 for the close of his account which was subsequently closed as per law. The complainant had received the amount alongwith interest and nothing remained due against the opposite party. It was submitted that account of the complainant was closed prior to the notification bearing No. GSR 956 (E) dated 7.12.2010, as such the complainant is not entitled to receive the benefit of the notification as the complainant had applied for close his account on 2.3.2006. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.

3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, summoned record Ex.C-1 and C-2, copy of pass book Ex.C-3, copy of payment cheques Ex.C-4, copy of letter No. F.No.742008-NSII Ex.C-5, copy of notice dated 20.7.2013 Ex.C-6, postal receipt Ex.C-7, legal notice dated 14.10.2013 Ex.C-8, copy of receipt Ex.C-9, e-mail by Satinder Kaur employee of the opposite party Ex.C-10, copy of the personal representation Ex.C-11, copy of statement of account of Avinash Chander HUF Ex.C-12.

4. Opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.S.S.Puri,Deputy Manager Ex.OP1, copy of pass book Ex.OP2, copy of statement of account Ex.OP3.

5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.

6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that complainant opened HUF PPF account No. 6286 with the opposite party bank on 18.3.1990. The said account matured in the month of March 2005. The complainant submitted that an amendment has been made to PPF Scheme 1968 by the Ministry of Finance notification GSR 956(E) dated 7.12.2010 and new provision has been inserted according to which PPF account opened on behalf of HUF prior to 13.5.2005 shall be closed after expiry of 15 days from the end of the year in which initial subscription was made. In respect of those HUF accounts where the initial period of 15 years had already been completed prior to the issue of notification , such accounts were to be closed on 31.3.2011. The complainant alleges that the opposite party credited interest of Rs. 81606/- as on 31.3.2005 and outstanding credit as on 31.3.2005 in the account and the total amount came out Rs.9,01,686.60 paise. As per the notification the complainant applied for close of account on 2.3.2006 and the opposite party after crediting Rs. 6011.24 paise as interest for full year closed the account and issued cheque of Rs. 9,07,697.84 paise to the complainant. Opposite party bank has not made payment of full interest at PPF rates on the amount of Rs. 9,01,686.60 paise which remained with the opposite party bank from 1.4.2005 to 1.3.2006 in the aforesaid HUF PPF account of the complainant. The copy of the pass book is Ex.C-3. The statement of account is Ex.C-2. The complainant approached the opposite party for the payment of the interest at the PPF account rate , but the opposite party did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. In June 2013 the complainant came through a letter F.No.7/4/2008-NSII dated 1.6.2011 issued by the Ministry of Finance, copy of which is Ex.C-5. As per these instructions the complainant is entitled to interest at PPF rates for the aforesaid period i.e. 1.4.2005 to 2.3.2006 when the account of the complainant was closed . But the opposite party did not pay this amount. The complainant served legal notice upon the opposite party, copy of which is Ex.C-6 dated 20.7.2013 as well as another notice dated 14.10.2013 Ex,.C-8. But the opposite party did not pay the aforesaid rate of interest at PPF account rate to the complainant. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.

7. Whereas the case of the opposite party is that after completion of PPF account period, the complainant applied on 2.3.2006 for the close of his account. Consequently his account was closed as per law and the complainant received the amount alongwith interest upto that period when the account of the complainant was closed, as such nothing remained due, payable to the complainant by the opposite party. The notification dated 7.12.2010 issued by the Ministry of Finance bearing No. G.S.R. 956(E) does not relate to the scheme of the complainant. Further, the instructions issued by the Ministry of Finance dated 1.6.2011 Ex.C-5 applies to the persons whose account remained with the opposite party bank and has not been closed. Moreover the said instructions are dated 1.6.2011 whereas the present complaint has been filed by the complainant on 4.8.2014 i.e. after a lapse of period of more than 3 years. The case of the complainant is also barred by limitation, as such the complainant is not entitled to any amount of interest as claimed by the complainant. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.

8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant opened PPF ( HUF) account No. 6286 with the opposite party bank on 18.3.90 which matured in March 2005 i.e. after 15 years. Consequently the complainant applied for close of account on 2.3.2006 and the opposite party after crediting the balance interest Rs. 6011.24 paise, closed the account and issued cheque of Rs. 9,07,697.84 paise Ex.C-4 to the complainant on 2.3.2006. The complainant alleges that the opposite party bank retained the amount of the complainant i.e. Rs. 9,01,686.60 paise from 1.4.2005 to 1.3.2006 but paid only Rs. 6011.24 paise as interest i.e. simple interest and not interest at the PPF rate as per the instructions of the Ministry of Finance issued vide F.No.7/4/2008-NSII dated 1.6.2011 Ex.C-5. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that these instructions contained in letter Ex.C-5 are applicable to only those accounts which had attained maturity after 13.3.2005 but closed by the subscriber before 7.12.2010 subject to the conditions that the accounts had not been extended thereafter and the deposits were retained in such accounts without further subscriptions. But in the present case the complainant has closed his account on 2.3.2006 and he had been paid the entire amount due alongwith interest upto 2.3.2006 vide cheque of Rs. 9,07,697.84 paise Ex.C-4. The complainant had already received the entire amount due on 2.3.2006 , as such after 2.3.2006 the complainant did not remain consumer with the opposite party and as per the aforesaid instructions the opposite party did not retain the amount of the complainant and the accounts of the complainant had not been extended thereafter nor the opposite party retained the deposits in such account of the complainant. We have gone through the contents of the instructions contained in aforementioned letter of Ministry of Finance dated 1.6.2011 Ex.C-5 which is applicable to only those PPF (HUF) accounts which had attained the maturity after 13.5.2005 but closed by the subscribers before 7.12.2010 subject to the conditions that the accounts had not been extended thereafter and the deposits were retained in such accounts. But in the present case the complainant had already closed his account on 2.3.2006 and he had been paid the entire amount due to the complainant at the time of maturity of the account on 31.3.2005 alongwith interest from 1.4.2005 to 1.3.2006 (simple rate of interest) and the account of the complainant had not been extended thereafter and the deposits were not retained in such account. So the aforesaid instructions are not applicable to the account of the complainant.

9. Apart from this the complainant closed his account and had taken the full amount on 2.3.2006. No doubt the Ministry of Finance, Govt.of India vide letter dated 1.6.2011 Ex.C-5 made certain provisions for the persons whose accounts had not been extended thereafter and the deposits were retained in such account and not withdrawn by the subscribers . These instructions too were issued vide letter dated 1.6.2011 Ex.C-5 . So the cause of action accrued to the complainant on 2.3.2006 when the complainant demanded his amount due in his PPF account and was paid the entire amount to the complainant on 2.3.2006 vide cheque Ex.C-4 dated 2.3.2006 and the complainant closed his account after receiving full and final maturity amount alongwith interest (without protest) and he did not retain the amount with the opposite party after 2.3.2006 or at the most we can say the cause of action accrued to the complainant on 1.6.2011 when the aforesaid instructions were issued by the Ministry of Finance vide letter Ex.C-5 (though the said instructions are not applicable to the case of the complainant). Whereas the complainant filed the present complaint on 4.8.2014 i.e. after lapse of a period of more than two years . As per Consumer Protection Act, the period of limitation for filing the complaint is two years , as such the present complaint is also barred by limitation and the complainant has not filed any application with the complaint for condonation of delay. Moreover, the complainant has also failed to prove on record any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.

10. Resultantly we hold that complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

4.05.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )

President

( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)

/R/ Member