Sub post Master V/S United Theological College - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Bangalore Urban

CC/1193/2008

United Theological College - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sub post Master - Opp.Party(s)

Nova Bethania

21 Jul 2008

ORDER

BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSLAL FORUM, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA STATE.
Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cauvery Bhavan, 8th Floor, BWSSB Bldg., K. G. Rd., Bangalore-09.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/1193/2008

United Theological College						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Sub post Master						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED: 26.05.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 26th JULY 2008 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SRI. SYED USMAN RAZVI MEMBER SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 1193/2008 COMPLAINANT The United Theological College, No. 63, Millers Road, Benson Town, Bangalore 560 046. Represented by its Principal. Advocate (S. Nova Bethania) V/s. OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. The Sub-Post Master, K.G. Road Post Office, Bangalore 560 009. 2. The Senior Superintendent of Post, Bangalore West Division, Bangalore 560 010. 3. The Chief Post Master General, Karnataka Circle, General Post Office, Bangalore 560 001. Advocate (Narayan. V. Yaji) O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant to direct the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to refund Rs.90,000/- and pay a compensation and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant made term deposits with OP for a period of 5 years Rs.3,00,000/- each on 13.03.2003 and Rs.5,00,000/- each on 26.06.2004 in all Rs.16,00,000/- is deposited. OP agreed to pay the interest on the said deposits. With respect to the two deposits bearing No. 569034 and 569035 OP has paid Rs.90,000/- interest which was credited to the complainants account. On 01.09.2004 OP.1 wrote a letter to the complainant to withdraw term deposits for Rs.5,00,000/- bearing account Nos. 569065, 569068 they cannot be considered as there is no provision to pay the interest. Since account opened are irregular. Complainant without finding any other way withdrawn the said deposit of Rs.10,00,000/-. Again on 24.12.2005 OP addressed a letter to the complainant stating that their deposits of Rs.3,00,000/- under the two accounts No. 569034, 569035 are also irregular accounts. Complainant heeded to withdraw that amount also. Inspite of submission of the withdrawal application by the complainant, OP failed to close the said account. On repeated insistence and correspondence, ultimately after lapse of more than 1½ years OP closed the said account, but refunded only Rs.2,55,000/- for each deposit of Rs.3,00,000/-, that is in all deducted Rs.90,000/- paid as a interest earlier. Again complainant made several correspondence, it went in vain. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant to refund the said Rs.90,000/- which is deducted illegally, went in futile. OP kept the said amount for more than 4 years, but did not take any action. Thus complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly. 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP the said deposits made by the complainant are not in accordance with the PO TD rules. As the said accounts are irregular accounts, hence OP exercised its inherent powers in deducting the interest paid inadvertently. That act of the OP cannot be termed as deficiency in service. OP exercised its powers under rule 17 and closed the account. Prima-facie the said account opened was irregular and in contravention of the provisions of the act and rules hence after deducting the interest already paid the remaining deposit is returned. OP has got a right to deduct the said interest, complainant cannot plead ignorance of law or rules. The action initiated by the OP in recovery of the said interest paid inadvertently is in accordance with the rules. Hence the complaint is devoid of merits. The other allegations are baseless. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence. Then the arguments were heard. 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order? 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: Point No.1:- In Affirmative Point No.2:- Affirmative in part Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the OP accepted the deposit of Rs.3,00,000/- under account Nos. 569034 and another Rs.3,00,000/- under account No. 569035 for a term of 5 years on 13.03.2003. It is also not at dispute that in account No. 569065 and 569068 OP received the deposit of Rs.5,00,000/- each for 5 years on 26.06.2004 agreeing to pay the agreed rate of interest. In all complainant deposited Rs.16,00,000/-. It is also not at dispute that OP paid an interest of Rs.90,000/- for the year 2003-04 with respect to account No. 569034 and 569035. 7. Now it is contended by the complainant that on 01.09.2004 he received the letter from OP stating that their deposit with respect to account No. 569065 and 569068 are irregular account. Complainant heeded to the advise of the OP and took back the said deposit of Rs.10,00,000/-. Then again on 24.12.2005 OP informed the complainant to close the other two accounts No. 569034 and 569035. Why there is a delay of more than 3 months in intimating the said fact as against the intimation sent on 01.09.2004 is not known. 8. It is contended by the OP that complainant cannot plead the ignorance of law and the rules in any manner for any purpose. If the OP is of the opinion that the opening of the said accounts and making deposit of such a huge amount is irregular, then what made the OP to accept the said deposit not in thousands but in lakhs in the year 2003-04 is not known. So OP cannot plead the ignorance of law simultaneously. So the defence set out by the OP that the deposits made by the complainant by opening the said accounts were irregular loudly speaks to the deficiency in service on the part of the OP a mighty institution which accepted the said deposit and even paid the interest for two years. 9. Now it appears OP wants to shirk its responsibility and intended to throw the blame and burden on the complainant alleging that opening of the said accounts is opposed to the TD account rules. This kind of defence at this later stage also amounts to deficiency in service. Complainant heeded to the advise of the OP and expressed his willingness to withdraw those Rs.6,00,000/- and made submission in that regard with a request to close the account. The correspondence made in that regard are produced. OP kept it pending for more than 16 months, failed to close the said account. Again complainant insisted the OP either to pay the interest or close the account and refund the deposit, thereafter it appears in the month of April 2006 OP opened its eyes and closed the account on 28.04.2006. But still OP refunded only Rs.2,55,000/- out of Rs.3,00,000/- deposited under the said two receipts referred to above. In all OP deducted Rs.90,000/- from the deposit. Complainant was shocked to know the same, that is why he demanded OP to refund the said amount. 10. On going through the correspondence OP kept pending the said demand for more than 4 years under the guise of making consultation with the Senior Officers and the other Divisional Offices, etc., then came up with a defence that they have got a right to recover the said interest paid inadvertently as that of recovery of the land revenue. OP are aware of the fact that any deposit made carries the interest, that is why they paid Rs.90,000/- interest. If the said deposit would have been returned in time, complainant would have invested the same in some other financial institutions and would have accrued the interest. Because of the carelessness and negligence on the part of the OP complainant is deprived of the said benefit. On the other hand unfortunately OP to cover its own mistake, carelessness and negligence harped upon the complainant and went to the extent of deducting Rs.90,000/- interest paid long back. Again this action of OP amounts to deficiency in service. 11. Complainant for no fault of his, is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. The evidence of the complainant finds full corroboration with the contents of the undisputed documents. There is nothing to discard the sworn testimony of the complainant. As against this unimpeachable evidence of the complainant, the defence set out by the OP appears to be defence for defence sake, it wants to take undue advantage of some of the rules and provisions of the so called TD accounts rules. That too to cover its skin out of sin. The approach of the OP does not appears to be fair and honest. We are satisfied that the complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under such circumstances the complainant is entitled for the refund of the Rs.90,000/- deducted by the OP out of the deposit of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rs.3,00,000/- each in two deposits). With these reasons we answer point nos.1 and 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is allowed in part. OPs are directed to refund Rs.90,000/- to the complainant within 4 weeks from the date of communication of this order and pay a litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 26th day of July 2008.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.

COMPLAINT FILED: 26.05.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 26th JULY 2008 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SRI. SYED USMAN RAZVI MEMBER SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 1193/2008 COMPLAINANT The United Theological College, No. 63, Millers Road, Benson Town, Bangalore 560 046. Represented by its Principal. Advocate (S. Nova Bethania) V/s. OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. The Sub-Post Master, K.G. Road Post Office, Bangalore 560 009. 2. The Senior Superintendent of Post, Bangalore West Division, Bangalore 560 010. 3. The Chief Post Master General, Karnataka Circle, General Post Office, Bangalore 560 001. Advocate (Narayan. V. Yaji) O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant to direct the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to refund Rs.90,000/- and pay a compensation and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant made term deposits with OP for a period of 5 years Rs.3,00,000/- each on 13.03.2003 and Rs.5,00,000/- each on 26.06.2004 in all Rs.16,00,000/- is deposited. OP agreed to pay the interest on the said deposits. With respect to the two deposits bearing No. 569034 and 569035 OP has paid Rs.90,000/- interest which was credited to the complainants account. On 01.09.2004 OP.1 wrote a letter to the complainant to withdraw term deposits for Rs.5,00,000/- bearing account Nos. 569065, 569068 they cannot be considered as there is no provision to pay the interest. Since account opened are irregular. Complainant without finding any other way withdrawn the said deposit of Rs.10,00,000/-. Again on 24.12.2005 OP addressed a letter to the complainant stating that their deposits of Rs.3,00,000/- under the two accounts No. 569034, 569035 are also irregular accounts. Complainant heeded to withdraw that amount also. Inspite of submission of the withdrawal application by the complainant, OP failed to close the said account. On repeated insistence and correspondence, ultimately after lapse of more than 1½ years OP closed the said account, but refunded only Rs.2,55,000/- for each deposit of Rs.3,00,000/-, that is in all deducted Rs.90,000/- paid as a interest earlier. Again complainant made several correspondence, it went in vain. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant to refund the said Rs.90,000/- which is deducted illegally, went in futile. OP kept the said amount for more than 4 years, but did not take any action. Thus complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly. 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP the said deposits made by the complainant are not in accordance with the PO TD rules. As the said accounts are irregular accounts, hence OP exercised its inherent powers in deducting the interest paid inadvertently. That act of the OP cannot be termed as deficiency in service. OP exercised its powers under rule 17 and closed the account. Prima-facie the said account opened was irregular and in contravention of the provisions of the act and rules hence after deducting the interest already paid the remaining deposit is returned. OP has got a right to deduct the said interest, complainant cannot plead ignorance of law or rules. The action initiated by the OP in recovery of the said interest paid inadvertently is in accordance with the rules. Hence the complaint is devoid of merits. The other allegations are baseless. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence. Then the arguments were heard. 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order? 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: Point No.1:- In Affirmative Point No.2:- Affirmative in part Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the OP accepted the deposit of Rs.3,00,000/- under account Nos. 569034 and another Rs.3,00,000/- under account No. 569035 for a term of 5 years on 13.03.2003. It is also not at dispute that in account No. 569065 and 569068 OP received the deposit of Rs.5,00,000/- each for 5 years on 26.06.2004 agreeing to pay the agreed rate of interest. In all complainant deposited Rs.16,00,000/-. It is also not at dispute that OP paid an interest of Rs.90,000/- for the year 2003-04 with respect to account No. 569034 and 569035. 7. Now it is contended by the complainant that on 01.09.2004 he received the letter from OP stating that their deposit with respect to account No. 569065 and 569068 are irregular account. Complainant heeded to the advise of the OP and took back the said deposit of Rs.10,00,000/-. Then again on 24.12.2005 OP informed the complainant to close the other two accounts No. 569034 and 569035. Why there is a delay of more than 3 months in intimating the said fact as against the intimation sent on 01.09.2004 is not known. 8. It is contended by the OP that complainant cannot plead the ignorance of law and the rules in any manner for any purpose. If the OP is of the opinion that the opening of the said accounts and making deposit of such a huge amount is irregular, then what made the OP to accept the said deposit not in thousands but in lakhs in the year 2003-04 is not known. So OP cannot plead the ignorance of law simultaneously. So the defence set out by the OP that the deposits made by the complainant by opening the said accounts were irregular loudly speaks to the deficiency in service on the part of the OP a mighty institution which accepted the said deposit and even paid the interest for two years. 9. Now it appears OP wants to shirk its responsibility and intended to throw the blame and burden on the complainant alleging that opening of the said accounts is opposed to the TD account rules. This kind of defence at this later stage also amounts to deficiency in service. Complainant heeded to the advise of the OP and expressed his willingness to withdraw those Rs.6,00,000/- and made submission in that regard with a request to close the account. The correspondence made in that regard are produced. OP kept it pending for more than 16 months, failed to close the said account. Again complainant insisted the OP either to pay the interest or close the account and refund the deposit, thereafter it appears in the month of April 2006 OP opened its eyes and closed the account on 28.04.2006. But still OP refunded only Rs.2,55,000/- out of Rs.3,00,000/- deposited under the said two receipts referred to above. In all OP deducted Rs.90,000/- from the deposit. Complainant was shocked to know the same, that is why he demanded OP to refund the said amount. 10. On going through the correspondence OP kept pending the said demand for more than 4 years under the guise of making consultation with the Senior Officers and the other Divisional Offices, etc., then came up with a defence that they have got a right to recover the said interest paid inadvertently as that of recovery of the land revenue. OP are aware of the fact that any deposit made carries the interest, that is why they paid Rs.90,000/- interest. If the said deposit would have been returned in time, complainant would have invested the same in some other financial institutions and would have accrued the interest. Because of the carelessness and negligence on the part of the OP complainant is deprived of the said benefit. On the other hand unfortunately OP to cover its own mistake, carelessness and negligence harped upon the complainant and went to the extent of deducting Rs.90,000/- interest paid long back. Again this action of OP amounts to deficiency in service. 11. Complainant for no fault of his, is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. The evidence of the complainant finds full corroboration with the contents of the undisputed documents. There is nothing to discard the sworn testimony of the complainant. As against this unimpeachable evidence of the complainant, the defence set out by the OP appears to be defence for defence sake, it wants to take undue advantage of some of the rules and provisions of the so called TD accounts rules. That too to cover its skin out of sin. The approach of the OP does not appears to be fair and honest. We are satisfied that the complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under such circumstances the complainant is entitled for the refund of the Rs.90,000/- deducted by the OP out of the deposit of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rs.3,00,000/- each in two deposits). With these reasons we answer point nos.1 and 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is allowed in part. OPs are directed to refund Rs.90,000/- to the complainant within 4 weeks from the date of communication of this order and pay a litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 26th day of July 2008.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.