BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.81 of 2016

Date of Instt. 16.02.2016

Date of Decision: 06.09.2017

1. Smt. Ujjal Kaur (Aged about 70 years) wife of Sh. Bhupinder Singh.

2. Sh. Bhupinder Singh son of Sh. Manohar Singh.

Both residents of House No.107, Master Tara Singh Nagar, Jalandhar.

..........Complainants

Versus

1. Sub Post Master, Sessions Court Post Office, Jalandhar.

2. Senior Superintendent Post Offices, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar.

….… Opposite parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)

Sh. Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh. Yogesh Malhotra, Adv Counsel for the complainant.

Sh. JS Saini, Adv Counsel for the OP No.1 & 2.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. This complaint presented by the complainants, wherein alleged that the complainants have retired from government department. The OPs are running various deposit schemes and are propagating the same in the public by various modes of publicity. It was publicized by the OPs that they are offering monthly interest on the deposits made by the public. The complainant No.1 on being so allured by the OPs, opened an account under MIS Scheme (Monthly Income Scheme) with the OP No.1, having account No.63100705 dated 08-09.08.2010, jointly with her husband Sh. Bhupinder Singh and deposited a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-. The account was for a period of six years. The complainant No.2 on being so allured by the OPs, opened an account under MIS Scheme (Monthly Income Scheme) with the OP No.1, having account No.63100633, dated 06.08.2009, jointly with his wife Smt. Ujjal Kaur and deposited a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-. The account was for a period of six years.

2. That the complainant used to collect the interest, quarterly, on their deposits with the OP No.1. It is pertinent to mention here that since the date of opening of the accounts, the complainants have been regularly receiving the interest on the deposits without any objection from any quarter. But all of sudden, in the month of September, when the complainant No.1 had gone to collect interest on her deposit, the OP No.1 refused to pay the interest on the ground that she is joint 'B' account holder with her husband in MIS account No.63100633. The OP No.1 informed the complainant No.1 that as per the rules, her deposit is to be treated as joint/one account with the account of her husband i.e. complainant No.2, Sh. Bhupinder Singh. The complainant was shocked to learn this from the OP No.1. While opening both the accounts no such rule was cited by the OPs and also no such objection was raised by the OPs, though the OPs were having complete knowledge about the antecedents of the complainants, yet they allowed the opening of the accounts and accepted the deposits. While disallowing the complainant No.1 to operate her account in the month of September, 2015, the OPs cited some internal departmental orders that they cannot allow the complainant to have a deposit more than Rs.4,50,000/- in individual name and further stated that no more than Rs.9,00,000/- can be deposited in the joint accounts. This thing was never conveyed to the complainants by the OPs nor do they ever informed the complainants. They OPs pressurized the complainants to close their account prematurely. Thereafter, the account No.63100705 dated 09.08.2010 was closed prematurely and no interest was paid to the complainants and also the OPs had made deductions for prematurely closing the account. The complainants were not at fault but they were put to disadvantageous position by the OPs and losses were caused to them. Due to the highly callous attitude of the OPs, the complainants suffered financial losses to the tune of Rs.65,000/- and also suffered mental agony, harassment and tension. The OPs kept the complainants in complete darkness and allured them to invest their hard earned money with the OPs. Had the OPs informed the complainants about any such rules and regulations, then the complainants would not have deposited their money with the OPs and would have deposited the same with any nationalized bank or any other financial institution which could have provided prevalent bank interest to the complainants without their being any upper limit of deposit. The act and conduct of the OPs is highly reprehensible and amounts to unfair trade practices.

3. That the OPs also deducted Rs.3000/-, while refunding the principal amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainant No.1. The OPs also threatened that they would pay an interest of 4% only to the complainants, whereas the complainants are entitled to the interest of 8% per annum. The complainants protested against the illegal acts of the OPs but, the OPs cited departmental rules and refused to make payment to the complainants thereby causing much of harassment, mental tension, torture coupled with financial losses to the complainants and as such a notice was also issued to the OPs but all in vain and as such this complaint filed with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- and also be directed to pay an amount deducted by the OPs i.e. Rs.3000/- and also pay the loss of interest to the complainant to the tune of Rs.65,000/- and other ancillary expenses of Rs.50,000/- in total Rs.11,18,000/-.

4. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who filed joint reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint of the complainant is bad for non-joinder of the necessary i.e. Government of India through its Secretary, Department of Post & Telecommunication, New Delhi and functionaries of the Government of India cannot be sued in their official capacity in the absence of impleading the Government of India and further averred that the present complaint is not maintainable in the eyes of law, as such the same is liable to be dismissed and even the complainants have got no locus standi to file the present complaint, as such, the same is liable to be dismissed and further alleged that no cause of action accrued to the complainants to file the present complaint against the OPs and even the complainants are barred by their own acts and conduct to file the present complaint. It is further alleged that the complainants have concealed the material facts deliberately in depositing the amount in the monthly income scheme on 08.09.2010 as there was earlier monthly income scheme taken by the complainants on 06.08.2009. The subsequent deposits of monthly income scheme, was in contravention of the Rules and Regulations framed by the Govt as per department rule 159 (II) of PSOB Manual Vol.I, “The depositor may open more than one account subject to the condition that deposits in all accounts taken together shall not exceed Rs.4.5 Lakhs in single account and Rs.9 Lakhs in joint accounts on or after 01.08.2017. On merits, the factum in regard to deposit of the amount by the complainant is admitted but the remaining allegations as made by the complainant is categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merit and the same may be dismissed.

5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CW1/A and Legal Notice i.e. Ex. C1 and closed the evidence of the complainant.

6. Similarly counsel for the OP No.1 and 2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OPA alongwith some documents Ex.O-1 to Ex.O-10 and then closed the evidence.

7. We bestowed our thoughtful consideration to the submission made by learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.

8. The facts of the complaint in regard to opening of two MIS (Monthly Income Scheme) by the complainants is not denied rather it is admitted that two joint account got opened by the complainants account No.63100705 dated 08.09.2010 jointly with the name of Bhupinder Singh and Ujjal Kaur and whereby deposited a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- for a period of six years and the second monthly income scheme, account is opened by Ujjal Kaur and Bhupinder Singh the account No. is 63100633 dated 06.08.2009 and this account was for period of six years and it is admitted fact that the complainant was regularly withdrawing the interest amount there from up to August, 2015 and thereafter the OP refused to pay the interest on the second monthly income scheme/account on the ground that the rules provide that the depositor may open more than one account subject to condition that the deposits in all accounts taken together shall not exceed Rs.4.5 lacs in single account and Rs.9,00,000/- in joint account on or after 01.08.2007. The said rule and regulation of the Postal Department came to the notice of the OP when complainant came to collect the interest of both the monthly scheme accounts and accordingly OP asked the complainant to close one account which is opened later i.e. on 08.09.2010 and accordingly the said account was closed.

9. That the complainant alleged that there is a negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OP but these factum has not been established on the file in any manner because if any mistake has been occurred due to inadvertence on the part of the OP then it is required to be rectified whenever said wrong omission came to the notice of the OP and accordingly has been done in this case and nobody can go beyond the rule and regulation, copy of the rule and regulation produced on the file by the OP is Ex.OP5 and as per chapter 6 monthly income account scheme, Section 159 (II), it is clearly mentioned that the depositor may open more than one account subject to the condition that the deposit in all the accounts taken together and shall not exceed Rs.4.5 lacs in single account and Rs.9 lacs in joint account on or after 01.08.2007 and admittedly in this case, the amount has been deposited by the complainant 6 lacs in each account and total comes to Rs.12 lacs, means exceeded the maximum limit of 9 lacs and as such the OP has rightly got closed one account because the rule does not provide to retain two accounts more than the amount of Rs.9 lacs and moreover the complainant has already received the interest on the said deposit till the date of withdrawal and these factum is corroborated from copy of the ledgers Ex.O3 and Ex.O4. When the complainant has already received the interest on the deposit then we cannot say that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP and as such in order to give strength to our above observation, we like to refer a pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court, cited in 2011(3) Civil Courts Cases 682 (S.C.), title Arulmighu Dhandayudhapaniswamy Thirukoil Vs. The Director General of Post Offices, wherein his Lordship held as under “Deposit in post office scheme, scheme had already been discontinued, amount refunded after four months without any interest, post office rules are providing that if account opened in contravention of any rules, then close the account and refund the amount without interest, appellant claimed interest, in view of the Rules of Post Office, failure to pay interest cannot be construed as a case of deficiency in service”, if we see the case of the complainant in the light of above judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court then it becomes clear that there is no merits in the case of the complainant. So, accordingly the same is dismissed with no order of cost. Parties will bear their own cost. Complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

10. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Karnail Singh

06.09.2017 Member President