For Complainant : Advocate R.K. Tulsani
For Opponents : Advocate Surwasase/Mali
************************************************************
Per : MEMBER, Smt. Sujata Patankar
//JUDGMENT//
[1] The facts giving rise to the complaint briefly stated are as follows :-
It is the case of the Complainants that the Complainants have opened the P.P.F. Account with the Opponent having P.P.F. Account Nos. 10894099891, 10894075575, 108940099835, 1089409904, 10894082913. On 20/3/2010, the Complainants have deposited with Opponent separate five cheques in respect of above said five P.P.F. accounts; two of them of amount of Rs.93,100/- each and three of Rs.1,00,000/- each of H.D.F.C. Bank, were given to the Opponent and Opponent have specifically given the respective receipt on the challans of the P.P.F. Schemes. As per this receipt Opponent have received these cheques on 22/3/2010. Lateron when the Complainant updated their respective passbooks they found that no such entries were made/updated in their accounts regarding the above said cheques. When enquire, respondent’s officials told Complainant that concern cheques were of more than Rs.70,000/- which is maximum annual limit of the P.P.F. Account and as such were not forwarded by respondent for encashment. All this were happened on 15/4/2010. Accordingly, just to continue the P.P.F. Account respondent have taken and deposited Rs.500/- in each of the account with penalty of Rs.50/- thereon, on 15/4/2010. (borne by Complainant). It is Complainant’s say that they do agree that due to over-site, instead of maximum annual limit of Rs.70,000/- Complainant had given the amount above annual limit. However respondent had received the said cheques on 22/3/2010 and certainly respondent and respondent’s officials must have known either on 22/3/2010 and 23/3/2010 that these cheques are above annual limit. But instead of informing Complainant and taking new cheques in this regard, respondent have selected to keep mum and keep the cheques in respondent’s hand nearly for about 25 days. According to the Complainant, Respondent/Respondent’s staff were well aware that this P.P.F. Account is beneficial for income tax purposes and also for interest purposes, if deposited before 31/03/2010. However the negligence and default of respondent’s services respondent/respondent’s staff has cause loss/damages to Complainant/to the consumer of respondent. And such respondent are liable and responsible to pay this compensation to Complainant. The Complainant has furnished the details of the compensation/damages to be paid by respondent to Complainant are as under :-
Sr.No. |
Details |
Amount in Rs. |
1. |
The loss of income tax benefit which is equivalent to 30% of the P.P.F. deposit with maximum limit Rs.70,000/- each |
21,000 x 5 = 1,05,000/- |
2. |
Loss of interest on Rs.70,000/- each at the rate of 8% per am |
5600 x 5 = 28,000/- |
3. |
Toward mental harassment, etc. |
1500 x 5 = 7,500/- |
4. |
Charges of notice |
2,500/- |
|
Total |
1,43,000/- |
It is also further submitted that the Complainant gave respondent the notice dtd.27/4/2010. However the respondent have neither complied the same nor have received any reply from the respondent. It is the contention of the Complainant that this is the case of deficiency, negligence and the default in services of respondent. Therefore on all these grounds and as specifically stated in the complaint application, the Complainant has prayed as follows :-
A) This complaint be allowed.
B) That respondent be directed to pay Complainant compensation / damages of
Rs.1,43,000/- alongwith interest thereon from filing of this complaint till realization.
C) Cost of this complaint be awarded in favor of this Complainant.
D) Any other order in the interest of the Complainant.
Alongwith the complaint application, the Complainant has also filed affidavit in support of the contentions raised in the complaint application. The Complainant has also filed list of documents comprising 19 documents, such as cheques, challans, legal notice dtd.27/4/2010 through Advocate Kasliwal, RPAD receipt dtd.28/4/2010, authority letter given to Mr. B.Z. Kankria by the Complainants Nos. 1 to 5 etc..
[2] In pursuance of the notice of appearance issued by this Forum, the Opponent appeared and filed its written statement and has denied the complaint. However the complaint in respect of opening the P.P.F. account is not disputed. It is denied that on 20/3/2010 the Complainant have deposited with the respondent 5 separate cheques in respect of abovesaid P.P.F. account 2 of them amounting Rs.93,100/- each and 3 of them Rs.1,000,00/- each of HDFC Bank. It is also further contended that it is false to say that respondent Bank has given receipt on the challan of P.P.F. Scheme. It is also further submitted that it is not within the knowledge of this respondent that when Complainant updated their respective pass books they found that no such entry were made / updated in their accounts regarding the above said cheques. On enquiry officials of the respondent must have told to the Complainant that Rs.70,000/- is the maximum limit of the PPF Account and as such if the cheque amount is more than Rs.70,000/- in one account it cannot be forwarded for encashment. It is also contention of the Opponent that it is false to say that all this was happened on 15/4/2010. If Complainant has deposited Rs.500.00 in cash with penalty of Rs.50.00 on 15/4/2010 it is by the Complainant itself for safeguarding their interest as per the terms of the PPF Scheme and rules made thereunder. If Complainant agrees that due to oversight instead of maximum annual limit of Rs.70,000/- Complainant had given amount above annual limit in the circumstances the Complainant cannot take the benefit of his own wrong and blame the respondent. It is not the duty of the respondent officials to inform each and every customer the rules and regulations of PPF Account and inform and take new cheques from the each and every customer for PPF Account. It is the duty of each and every customer of PPF Account of PPF Account holder to deposit the amount as provided by the Central Government from time to time in that scheme. It is false to say that it is negligence and default of the respondents services and staff of the respondent has caused loss damages to the Complainant. It is false to say that respondent is liable and responsible to pay the compensation to the Complainant. The signatory Mr. Bhavirlal Z. Kankria do not have any locus standi to file the present complaint. The Complainants have not filed their respective affidavits in the present complaint. It is seen from the complaint that the address of the Complainant give in Form A, Form B and in the complaint are totally different. It is also further contended that the Public Provident Fund Scheme is the statutory scheme of the Central Government framed under the provisions of the Public Provident Fund Act, 1968 and the rules made thereunder from time to time. The branches of the State Bank Of India and its subsidiaries have been designated as accounts offices under the Scheme. The respondent bank is only a accounts office authorized by Central Government to receive the subscription under the scheme (Sec.2(b) of the scheme) run by Central Government and the amount goes to Central Government. As such Complainant is not a customer or consumer of respondent bank but he is a consumer of Central Government. As per Sec. 3 of the Scheme any individual on his own behalf of minor of whom he is guardian subscribe to the provident fund any amount not less than Rs.500.00 and no more than Rs.70,000.00 in a year. While opening the account subscriber has to apply to the accounts office in Form A in which he specifically undertakes and declares that he shall abide to the ceiling on the deposits as provided for by Central Government from time to time and accordingly the Complainants have filed the said Form No. A duly filled and signed and undertaken that they are abide to the ceilings and deposits as provided by Central Government from time to time which is Rs.70,000.00 maximum and as such the cheques given for clearing of more than Rs.70,000.00 cannot be forwarded for clearance. The subscriber has to pay the amount to the scheme by submitting the challan for deposit of money into Government Account in Form No. B and after completion of the challan duly filled by the depositor the accounts office i.e. (bank) enrolls the cashier scroll number, transfer scroll, number then M.T. number and after completion of the same details signed by the accounts office challan can be said as completed and valid till that challan cannot be a valid challan. Until and unless said challan is signed by the bank officers it cannot be valid. The challans filed by the Complainant are not the challans filed by the respondent and hence are irrelevant. As amount mentioned in the challan is not received by the respondent then question of receiving the challan does not arise. According to the Opponent, the Complainants are not consumers and as services to the Complainant is given by the respondent free of charge and hence respondent is not liable to pay any type of compensation to the Complainant as per the definition of Section 2 (d) of Consumer Protection Act. Therefore according to the Opponent, the Complainant instituted frivolous and vexatious complaint against the respondent liable to be dismissal and Complainant is liable to pay compensation to the respondent as per the provision of Sec.26 of Consumer Protection Act. The written version is supported with affidavit of Mr. Pradeep Kumar Pandey, Branch Manager of the Opponent Bank. As also the Opponent has filed list of documents comprising certified copy of Original Application Forms in form No. A of the Complainant, statement of PPF Account of Applicants.
[3] The Complainants have filed their rejoinder-affidavit and denied the contents in the written statement by the Opponent.
[4] The Complainant as well as the Opponent have filed written notes of arguments. The Opponent has also advanced oral submissions before the Forum. We have gone through the entire proceedings, pleadings, evidence, arguments produced on the record in the complaint proceedings.
[5] On perusal of the entire proceedings, the following points arouse for our consideration.
Points Answers
1. Whether the Complainants are “consumers”
of the Opponent ? … Yes.
2. Whether the Opponent has rendered
deficiency in service to the Complainants? … No.
3. What order ? … As per final order.
REASONS :-
[6] It is the case of the Complainants that they have paid amount of Rs. 93,100/- each for two PPF Accounts as also paid amount of Rs.1,00,000/- each for three PPF Accounts in the names of Complainants Nos. 1 to 5. The Complainants have filed with the complaint application cheques and their receipts given by the opponent Bank as also filed the counterfoil by the Opponent of Rs.500/- each and Rs.50/- as a penalty each. This fact is admitted by the Opponent in their written statement. It is pertinent to note that the Scheme is floated by the Central Government and the Bank is rolled as “Account Officer”. The Complainants deposited the cheques in the Opponent Bank. The Opponent filed the Application for opening Public Provident Fund Account under the Public Provident Fund Scheme bearing the name of the Complainants. Therefore, in our opinion the Complainants are “consumers” of the Opponent Bank. Hence we answer the point No. 1 in affirmative.
[7] As per the contentions made by the Complainants, the Complainants are having PPF Accounts and the Complainants deposited separate five cheques in their five PPF Accounts. Out of five cheques, two of them having amount of Rs.93,100/- and other three cheques in respect of PPF Accounts of Rs.1,00,000/- each. On 22/3/2010, the Complainants have received the receipt of cheques. When the Complainants updated their respective passbook, they found that no such entry were made / updated in their Accounts regarding the above said cheques. Thereafter the Complainants enquired about cheques at that time, the Opponent told that the cheques were of more than Rs.70,000/- which is maximum annual limit of PPF Account and therefore, the cheques not forwarded by the Opponent for encashment. On the other hand, in the written statement of the Opponent, also the Opponent stated that the maximum limit of PPF Account is of Rs.70,000/- and the Complainants cheques are more than prescribed limit and therefore the cheques cannot be forwarded for encashment. In this respect, we would like to focus on The Public Provident Fund Scheme, 1968 issued vide Government Of India, MOF (DEA) Notification No. GSR 1136 dated 56/1968 and further amended from time to time. As per the said notification, “the Scheme was introduced in Head Post Offices w.e.f. 1.1.1979 vide Annexure 1 and Selection Grade sub post offices w.e.f. 1.7.1988 vide Annexure 2. The nationalized banks as detailed in Annexure – 3 were authorized to accept subscriptions of the PPF Scheme w.e. f. 1.1.1988 …………” As per the definition 2 (b), ‘Accounts Office’ means an office or branch of the State Bank of India, any subsidiary bank of the state Bank of India (excluding a pay office, a sub pay-office or any other office managed by single officer or clerk). As per the Scheme “3 Limit of subscription :- (1) Any individual may, on his own behalf or on behalf of a minor of whom he is the guardian, subscribe to the Public Provident Fund (thereafter referred to as the Fund) any amount not less than Rs.500/- not more than Rs.70,000/- in a year”. With reference to the notification as mentioned in the foregoing lines, we can draw the inference that as per the Scheme, limit of subscription is not less than Rs.500/- and not more than Rs.70,000/- in a year. (Year means the financial year 1st April, to 31st March). It is admitted fact by the Complainant in the complaint application “It is Complainant’s say that they do agree that due to over-site, instead of maximum annual limit of Rs.70,000/- Complainant had given the amount above annual limit”. As against this, it is the contention of the Opponent “the Complainant cannot take the benefit of his own wrong and blame the respondent. It is not the duty of the respondent officials to inform each and every customer the rules and regulations of PPF Account and inform and take new cheques from the each and every customer for PPF Account. It is the duty of each and every customer of PPF Account of PPF Account holder to deposit the amount as provided by the Central Government from time to time in that scheme.” In the entire complaint the Complainants do not explain as to why the Complainants deposited the excess amounts of cheques more than Rs.70,000/-? As also, there is no contention of the Complainant that the Complainants deposited the said amount as per the demand by the Opponent Bank. In the present scenario, we opined that the Public Provident Found Scheme, 1968 is floated by and under the control of Central Government. The State Bank Of India is authorized by the Central Government only to receive the subscription under the scheme.
[8] On perusal of the documents produced by the Opponent on the record it reveals that the Complainants are having PPF Account as per Application for Opening A Public Provident Fund Account Under The Public Provident Fund Scheme from the year 2003. Therefore even though the Complainants have full knowledge about the PPF Scheme and limit of subscription from the year 2003 still the Complainants deposited the cheques for subscription more than Rs.70,000/- in each of PPF Account. Also this fact is admitted by the Complainants that instead of maximum annual limit of Rs.70,000/-, the Complainants had given the cheques above prescribed limit. In the present case, the role of the Bank is only to receive subscription under the scheme. In the present case, the Complainants themselves deposited the cheques more than limits of subscriptions and therefore, the Opponent cannot forwarded for encashment. When the Complainant came to the Bank and got the knowledge about non-encashment of cheques by the Opponent. Thereafter the Complainants deposited Rs.500/- in cash with penalty of Rs.50/- on 15/4/2010, for safeguarding their interest as per the terms of the PPF Scheme. With the aforesaid paragraphs we are of the view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opponent being a Account Officer. Therefore, in our opinion, the Complainants have failed to prove the deficiency on the part of the Opponent. Hence we answer the points Nos. 2 and 3 accordingly.
[9] On 12/1/2012 i.e. today, the Complainant has filed one authority [2011 (2 B C J 281] Bombay High Court in the matter of Mandatai Sambhaji Pawar And Another V/s. State Of Maharashtra & Others. We have gone through this authority. The same authority is concerned with Maharashtra Co.Op.Societies Act, 1960, S.91- Consumer complaint by depositors-members against co-operative credit society for non payment of deposits on maturity. In this case, the Opponent Bank i.e. State Bank Of India is governed under the rules and regulations of Reserve Bank Of India. Hence this case law is not applicable to the present case.
[10] After perusal of entire proceedings, in our view the Complainants filed this complaint against the Opponent unnecessarily. It is crystal clear that the Complainants dragged the Opponent in the Court proceedings without any deficiency rendered by the Opponent Bank. The Opponent cannot be held liable because of own wrongs of the Complainants. On the contrary in our opinion for attending the court dates, for appointing Advocate, for filing say and documents, written and oral arguments, the Opponent suffered unnecessarily costs and expenses without any mistake made by the Opponent. Therefore we opined that the Opponent is entitled for compensatory costs of Rs.1,000/- from the Complainant.
[11] With the aforesaid discussions, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.
Hence the following order :-
// ORDER //
(i) The complaint stands dismissed with compensatory costs of Rs.1,000/- (Rs. One Thousand Only) to be paid by the Complainants to the Opponent within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
(ii) Certified copies of this order be furnished to the Complainant and the Opponents free of costs.
