DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.97/18.07.2008 Decided on : 13.02.2009 Dr.Sukvinder Singh Joshi, S/o Sh.Sarwan Singh Joshi, Near Railway crossing, Bareta, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa. ..... Complainant. VERSUS 1.Sub Post Master, Bareta, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa. 2.Superintendent, Post Office, Bathinda Division, Divisional Office, Post Office Bazar, Bathinda. ..... Opposite Parties. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh.P.K.Arora, Advocate, counsel for the complainant. Sh.B.D.Jindal, Advocate, counsel for the opposite parties. Quorum: Sh.P.S.Dhanoa, President. Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER:- Sh.P.S.Dhanoa, President. This complaint has been filed by Dr.Sukvinder Singh Joshi, son of Sh.Sarwan Singh Joshi, resident of Bareta, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa, against the Sub Post Master, Bareta and the Superintendent, Post Office, Bathinda, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short called the 'Act') for giving a direction to the opposite parties to restore his account opened under the Monthly Income Scheme and to make payment of interest and bonus at the rate of 8% and 10%, respectively, and to pay him a sum of Rs.20,000/-, on account of Contd........2 : 2 : compensation, for mental and physical agony, suffered by him and a sum of Rs.10,000/-, on account of expenses, incurred by him, for filing the complaint. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that, he deposited, a sum of Rs.3 lacs, on 31.1.2004, in his Single Account, bearing No.210606, under Monthly Income Scheme, floated by the opposite parties. The complainant and his wife Smt.Mohinder Kaur, also opened a joint account, bearing No.211381, in their names, under the same scheme and deposited, equal sum of money, on 9.8.2005. The amount in the above said account, was deposited by the complainant and his wife, on the assurance given by their agent Sh.Subash Chand S/o Sh.Bachna Ram, resident of Bareta. The amount was to be remained deposited with the opposite parties for a period of 6 years and they were to pay interest @ 8 percent per annum to them. The complainant and his wife were also entitled, to receive bonus @ 10% per annum. The assurance was also given by Sh. Mangat Ram, the then SPM, for making the payment, to the complainant and his wife, at the above said rate. On the basis of the assurance given by the opposite parties, the wife of the complainant, named above and his daughter Smt. Ramanpreet also opened separate accounts as per the agreement between the parties. The opposite parties, have been making payment, as per the above assurance, upto November, 2007 and complainant and his wife, never faced any problem. However, with the passage of time, Sh.Suresh Kumar, SPM, posted in the office of the opposite parties, started claiming shares, in the interest and bonus, from the complainant. Against the said official of the opposite parties, one Megh Raj S/o Sh.Pali Ram, resident of Bareta, has also made a complaint. The said official of the opposite parties, served notice upon the complainant, against the rules, on the subject and principles of natural justice and stopped making payment of amount of interest and bonus as per the agreement. As such, there is deficiency in service, on the part of the opposite parties and the complainant, has suffered mental and physical Contd........3 : 3 : harassment and financial loss, in addition to amount of costs incurred for filing the instant complaint. 2. On being put to notice, opposite parties filed written version, resisting the complaint, by taking preliminary objections; that the complainant, has no cause of action, to file the complaint; that this Forum, has got no jurisdiction, to entertain and try the complaint; that the complainant, is not the 'consumer' within the purview of its definition given in the Act; that he has not approached this Forum with clean hands and suppressed the material facts, from its knowledge and there is no deficiency in service, on the part of the opposite parties, as such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with compensatory costs. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant deposited, a sum of Rs.3 lacs, on 31.1.2004 in his Single Account bearing No.210606, under Monthly Income Scheme, floated by the opposite parties and deposited equal amount in Account bearing No.211381 on 9.8.2005, which had been jointly opened, with his wife Smt.Mohinder Kaur. It is submitted that the complainant, was entitled to deposit only a sum of Rs.3 lacs in his individual account and a sum of Rs.6 lacs in joint account as per Rule 4 of the Post Office Monthly Income Scheme Rules, 1987. It is contended that due to deposit of excess amount, complainant is entitled to payment of interest under the scheme at the agreed rate for a sum of Rs.3 lacs deposited by him in his individual account , but he deliberately concealed the opening of this account at the time of opening the joint account under the same scheme. It is contended that due to act and conduct of the complainant, he is estopped from filing the complaint and is not entitled to payment of interest as per the scheme on amount of Rs.3 lacs deposited in joint account under the scheme launched by the opposite parties. It is denied that any mental and physical harassment, has been suffered by the complainant or he is entitled to payment of any amount on account of compensation and costs. Rest of the allegations, made in the complaint, Contd........4 : 4 : have been denied, and a prayer, has been made, for dismissal of the same, with costs. 3. On being called upon, by this Forum, to do so, learned counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence, copies of documents Ext.C-1 to C-4 and his affidavit Ext.C-5 before he closed the evidence on his behalf. On the other hand, Sh.Suresh Chand, Sub Post Master, has furnished his affidavit Ext.OP-1 and Sh.Sunil Kumar, Sub Divisional Inspector (Post Offices), District Mansa, has furnished his affidavit, Ext.OP-2. Learned counsel for the opposite parties also tendered in evidence, the copies of other documents, Ext.OP-3 to OP-8, before he closed their evidence. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the oral and documentary evidence, adduced on record, by the parties, carefully, with their kind assistance. 5. Learned counsel for the complainant, Sh.P.K.Arora, Advocate, has submitted, at the out set, that complainant and his wife, have deposited a sum of Rs 6 lacs in Single and Joint Accounts under the Monthly Income Scheme, as permissible under the rules on the subject, on the assurance given by the agent of the opposite parties. The opposite parties, have been making payment of interest, at prescribed rates, but subsequently stopped making payment on the amount of Rs.3 lacs deposited in the joint account of the complainant and his wife in arbitrary manner, as such, there is deficiency in service on their part. Learned counsel, has submitted that complainant, is entitled to payment of interest, at the rate prevailing at the time of opening of the joint account and complainant and his wife, have been subjected to mental and physical harassment, due to reduction of interest by the opposite parties, under the influence of one of their officials named in the complaint, as complainant turned down his demand for share in the amount received by him as interest on deposits, as such, they are liable to pay compensation and adequate amount on account of costs incurred by the complainant for filing Contd........5 : 5 : of the instant complaint. 6. On the other hand, Sh.B.D.Jindal, Advocate, learned counsel for the opposite parties, has contended that every citizen is supposed to know the law of the land and statutory rules framed thereunder, as such, the complainant and his wife, cannot be said to be ignorant about the rules on the subject prescribing the maximum limit for deposit in single and joint accounts. Learned counsel argued that the complainant concealed the factum of previous deposit by him in his single account in the sum of Rs.3 lacs, at the time of opening of joint account in the equal amount with his wife. Learned counsel further argued that after the conduct of the complainant came to the notice of the opposite parties, they effected recovery of excess amount paid on account of joint account, as the complainant and his wife, were entitled to payment of interest payable on saving account. Learned counsel, has drawn our attention to copies of various documents placed on record including printed blank application forms to be filled in by the account holders and pass books issued to them, notices served upon the complainant and his wife, about the maximum limit prescribed for deposit of amount under Monthly Income Scheme launched by the Government of India including the rules framed therein. Learned counsel argued, that as the opposite parties, have recovered the excess amount and have reduced the rate of interest on joint account payable to the complainant and his wife, therefore, there is no deficiency in service on their part, for which the complainant may be compensated for physical and mental harassment and costs incurred for filing the instant complaint. Learned counsel urged that complaint being false and vexatious, is liable to be dismissed with costs. 7. As per the admitted facts, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.3 lacs on 31.1.2004 in Account No.210606 under Monthly Income Scheme. The complainant and his wife also opened Joint Account No.211381 in their names under the same scheme on 9.8.2005 and Contd........6 : 6 : deposited another sum of Rs.3 lacs. The plea of the opposite parties is that under the rules on the subject, maximum limit of Rs.3, lacs has been prescribed for deposit of amount by a person in 'Individual Account' and Rs 6 lacs in 'Joint Account'. The complainant has also produced pamphlet Ext.C-4 published by the opposite parties on the subject under which a person can deposit maximum Rs.3 lacs in single account and Rs.6 lacs in Joint Account for a period of 6 years and the opposite parties are liable to pay rate of interest at the rate of 8% per annum and bonus at the rate of 10% to such a depositor. The opposite parties have also produced the copy of Post Office(Monthly Income Account) Rules, 1987, Ext.OP-3 and Rule 4 provides as under: 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 three lakhs, in single account and rupees six lakhs, in joint account. A 'Note' printed under this Rule further provides that, for the purpose of maximum balance, the depositor's share in the balance of a joint account shall be taken as one half or one third of such balance according as the account is held by two adults or three adults. 8. The conjoint reading of the Rule 4 and the above said note lead us to hold that a person can deposit maximum Rs.3 lacs under the scheme in individual account and equal amount in joint account. In the instant case, the complainant has deposited a sum of Rs.3 lacs in individual account and a sum of Rs.3 lacs in joint account with his wife. Therefore, as per our opinion, in the present case, complainant, has deposited the amount in individual and joint accounts, within the limits prescribed, under the rules. Therefore, the opposite parties, were not justified, in reducing the rate of interest on Joint Account and in making recovery of the any amount from the complainant. The plea of the complainant regarding assurance given by the agent of the opposite parties and demand of illegal Contd........7 : 7 : gratification by their SPM Suresh Kumar, is not corroborated, by any positive evidence. Therefore, we are unable to accept, that the opposite parties have reduced the rate of interest with malafide intentions. Since the opposite parties appears, to have reduced the rate of interest, by misinterpretation of their Rules cited above and Instructions, printed on pass book and application forms, therefore, such action taken by them is not sustainable, since the complainant and his wife, has undergone physical and mental harassment due to misinterpretation of the Rules and Instructions, by officials of opposite parties, as such, they are liable to compensate the complainant in terms of compensation also and to pay him adequate amount on account of costs incurred for filing this complaint. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, we have come to the irresistible conclusion that complainant is 'consumer' under the opposite parties and 'there is deficiency in service', on their part,. As such, we accept the complaint and direct the opposite parties, to pay interest and bonus at the rate prescribed, under the scheme, from the date of deposit till the date of actual payment. The opposite parties are further directed, to pay Rs.2,000/-, on account of compensation, for physical and mental harassment and Rs.1,000/- on account of costs, incurred by him, for filing the complaint. The above said amount be paid to the complainant within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. 10. The copies of the order be supplied, to the parties, free of costs, as permissible, under the rules. File be indexed and consigned to record. Pronounced: 13.02.2009 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, P.S.Dhanoa, Member. Member. President.
