DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.65/20.05.2008 Decided on : 16.01.2009 Megh Raj S/o Sh.Pali Ram , Resident of Near Government Girls Higher Secondary School, 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.S.K.Singla, Advocate, counsel for the complainant. Sh.B.D.Jindal, Advocate, counsel for the opposite parties. Quorum: Sh.Pritam Singh Dhanoa, President. Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER:- Sh.Pritam Singh Dhanoa, President. This complaint has been filed by Sh.Megh Raj son of Sh.Pali Ram, 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'). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is as under:- 2. That complainant deposited, a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-, in Sub Post Office, at Bareta, in Fixed Deposit Account No.210153, opened in his name, on 6.4.2002, under Monthly Income Scheme, floated by the opposite parties. He further deposited, equal sum of money, on 13.4.2002, in Contd........2 : 2 : another account No.210154, under the same scheme, and a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, in account No.210155, on 15.4.2002, through Sh.Des Raj, an Agent, of the opposite parties. The opposite parties, had been regularly making payment, of amount, due on account of interest, on the above said accounts, upto 2006, as such, he is consumer, under them, qua the above said accounts, issued in his name, by the opposite parties. He had no complaint against the opposite parties till then. The complainant, has retired from the post of a Teacher and he deposited, amount of his pensionary benefits, in the above said scheme. In addition to him, several other persons, living at his native village, have also opened several accounts, with the opposite parties, and they are receiving the amount, of interest, under the same scheme, from the opposite parties. It is submitted, that Sh.Suresh Kumar, an official employed, in the office of the opposite parties, as SPM, started demanding share, in the amount, of interest paid, to the complainant, but on his refusal, to do so, he told him that, he has deposited excess amount under the scheme, against the permissible limits. As the complainant approached the opposite parties, for payment, of amount due, on account of interest, they resumed making payment after the dispute was settled with the intervention of Agent of the opposite parties. However, when the complainant approached, the opposite parties, after expiry of period, for which amounts, have been deposited by him, for payment, he found that, opposite parties, have deducted, substantial amount from the amount payable, on account of interest, bonus and other benefits, because of which he, has suffered mental and physical harassment. The complainant has been informed by the OP No.1, that deduction of amount has been made from the amount payable to the complainant, as per rules. The opposite parties, have never informed the complainant, that no person, can deposit, more than a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-, under the scheme floated by them, whereas, their Agent, had informed him that the complainant, can deposit amount, in different accounts, under the Contd........3 : 3 : scheme, but he shall not deposit the same, in one account. At the end, a prayer, has been made that direction be given, to the opposite parties, to pay interest, at the rate of 12% per annum and they shall settle, the account with the complainant, regarding deduction made, in the sum of Rs.2,22,292/- and a prayer has also been made, for payment, of Rs.20,000/-, on account of compensation, for mental and physical agony, suffered by the complainant and a sum of Rs.1,000/-, on account of expenses, incurred by him, for filing the complaint. 3. On being put to notice, opposite parties filed written version, resisting the complaint, by taking preliminary objections; that the complainant, has no cause and action, to file the complaint; that this Forum, has got no jurisdiction, to entertain and try the complaint and the same deserves, to be dismissed, because the main relief claimed by him, is against the rules, on the subject, and the scheme, floated by the opposite parties. On merits, it is admitted, that complainant opened Fixed Deposit Accounts, bearing Account Nos. 210153 and 210154, in the sum of Rs.3,00,000/-, each and Account No.210155, in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, under Monthly Income Scheme. It is submitted that complainant was not entitled, to deposit, more than a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-, in his name, as provided, in the (Monthly Income Scheme) Rules, 1987. It is also contended, that the above said fact, was in the knowledge, of the complainant, at the time of deposit of the amount and, being a citizen of India, he is presumed, to be aware of statutory provisions of law, like other citizens. It is also contended, that, in the Pass Books issued, by the opposite parties, in the name of the depositors, at the time of deposit of amount, it has been clearly mentioned that, no person, can deposit more than a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-, in single account. It is denied that this fact was not brought, into the notice of the complainant, by the officials of the opposite parties. It is submitted, that the complainant, has opened separate accounts, on different dates by concealing factum of previous deposits Contd........4 : 4 : deliberately, as such, he is guilty of concealment of facts. As the error, was not detected earlier, therefore, he continued, to receive interest, on his deposits, in illegal manner. It is admitted, that Suresh Kumar is working, as SPM, at Bareta, in the office, of the opposite parties and complaint filed against the said official, by the complainant, was enquired into, but the same, was found to be false, and it was revealed, that the said official, had acted as per the departmental rules, instructions and provisions of the scheme, floated by the opposite parties. It is submitted that complainant is not entitled, to payment of higher rate of interest, under the scheme, against the provisions of (Monthly Income Scheme) Rules, 1987, as such, there is no deficiency in service, on the part of the opposite parties, for which, he may seek compensation and costs may be awarded for expenditure incurred, by him, for filing, of the instant complaint. Rest of the allegations, made in the complaint, have been denied, and a prayer, has been made, for dismissal of the same, with costs. 4. 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-10 and his affidavit Ext.C-11 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 copy of the Scheme and Rules framed thereunder Ext.OP-3; specimen of application required to be filled by the depositors for opening the accounts and other documents, Ext.OP-4 to OP-7, before he closed their evidence. 5. 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. 6. At the out set, learned counsel for the complainant, Sh. Contd........5 : 5 : S.K.Singla, Advocate, has drawn our attention, to the copies of scheme and rules framed thereunder placed, on record by him and, has argued that there is no bar against, opening of more than one account, by a person and there is no maximum limit prescribed for depositing the amount in different accounts by a depositor, under the scheme, launched by the opposite parties, as such, the application of cut, in rate of interest, applied by the opposite parties, is against the provisions of the scheme and rules, framed thereunder and there is deficiency in service, on the part of the opposite parties. Learned counsel, has also argued that, there is no evidence that contents of the scheme, were read over and explained, to the complainant, by the officials, or Agent of the opposite parties, at the time of deposit of amounts by him, under the scheme. Learned counsel argued, that officials of the opposite parties, had advised and allowed the complainant, to deposit the amount, in different accounts, under the scheme in accounts beyond the prescribed limit of Rs.3,00,000/-, as such, they are estopped, by their own act and conduct, from deducting the amount, on account of interest from the amount payable, on maturity, to the complainant, especially when, they have already paid him interest, as per the provisions, of the scheme. Learned counsel, has argued that complainant, has been subjected, to mental and physical agony, due to unfair trade practice, adopted by the opposite parties, as such, he deserves, to be compensated and direction be given, to the opposite parties, to pay the maturity amount, payable to him, without application of cut in rate of interest and also pay him adequate compensation and some amount on account of costs, to compensate him for amount spent for filing of instant complaint. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties, Sh.B.D.Jindal, Advocate, has submitted that every citizen is supposed to know the law of the land and statutory rules framed thereunder, as such, the complainant, cannot plead that he was ignorant about the terms and conditions of the scheme floated by the opposite parties or was misled Contd........6 : 6 : by their agent, before he deposited the amount. Learned counsel further submitted, that as per the own case of the complainant, contents of the scheme, had been published for the information of general public, and in response to the same, he has deposited the amount, in different accounts, beyond prescribed limit, as such, he cannot be said to be victim of misconception. Learned counsel, has also submitted that it was for the complainant, in his own interest, to seek clarification, from the officials of the opposite parties, before he deposited the amount, in different accounts, beyond the prescribed limit in different accounts opened on different dates, under the scheme launched by the opposite parties, but he deposited the amount, in subsequent account, concealing the factum of deposit of maximum amount by him, in first account, as such, he cannot be given the benefit, of his own wrong. Learned counsel argued that opposite parties are well within their right, to impose cut and deduct the amount, from the amount payable, to the complainant, on account of interest, on maturity, paid in excess, against the provisions of the scheme and rules framed thereunder. 8. Admittedly, the complainant, had deposited a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- each, in Accounts No.210153 and 210154 with the opposite parties, under the Monthly Income Scheme, on 6.4.2002 and 13.4.2002, launched by them. It is also not disputed, that he deposited another sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, in Account No.210155, on 15.4.2002, under the said scheme. The plea of the opposite parties is that maximum sum of Rs.3,00,000/-, can be deposited in 'single account' and a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-, in 'joint account', by a depositor, as mentioned, in the pamphlet, issued for information of the general public and rules framed under, the scheme. Learned counsel for the complainant, has placed reliance upon, the pamphlet, issued by the opposite parties placed on record by the counsel for the complainant which reads as under: 9. In multiples Rs.1000/- Maximum Rs.3 lakhs in Single Contd........7 : 7 : Account and Rs.6 lakhs in joint account can be deposited under the scheme. The Rule 4 contained in the copy of Post Office (Monthly Income Account) Rules, 1987, 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 bare perusal of the above said rule and the pamphlet published by the opposite parties, for the information of the general public, goes to show that depositor may operate, more than one account, under the scheme subject to the condition, the amount shall not exceed rupees 3 lacs in Single Account and rupees 6 lacs in Joint Account. Learned counsel for the complainant, has laid much stress, on the word single account, but language of the above rule and pamphlet is categorical and clear, which leads to no ambiguity. Therefore, it cannot be interpreted to mean that a depositor can open more than one account under the scheme and deposit a sum of rupees 3 lacs in each of them. The complainant, has deposited the amount, in three accounts, opened on different dates, by him, under the scheme, more than the permissible limit, in response to the publication of the scheme. As such, he cannot feign ignorance about the terms and conditions of the scheme, launched by the opposite parties. Rule 8 of the above said Rules, framed by the opposite parties, Ext.OP-8, on the subject, the prescribed payment of 9.5 % interest per annum, in respect of deposits, made on or after the 1st day of March, 2001, but before the 1st day of March, 2002. The opposite parties, have not disputed that they have paid interest as per the above said provisions earlier to the complaint before it was detected, that he has deposited excess amount, in different accounts, by concealing the factum of initial deposit. The contents of the affidavit Ext. C-11, of the complainant, that he was misled, by the Contd........8 : 8 : impression given by the Agent or any of the officials, of the opposite parties, are not corroborated, by any other oral evidence. As such, much confidence cannot be imposed on the same. The complainant is not an illiterate, rural rustic person, but a retired teacher, who might have just affixed his signatures at the time of deposit of the amount without reading and understanding the contents of scheme. In case, he had any doubt, in his mind, about the provisions, of the scheme and rules on the subject, then he must have sought clarification, from the officials, of the opposite parties, at the time of deposit. Even similar type of instructions, are found printed, in the Pass Books, Ext.C-1 and C-2, produced on record, by the complainant, himself. As such, he cannot be said to be ignorant about the terms and conditions of the scheme. The mere fact that, he has been paid interest, as per the provisions of the scheme for Fixed Deposits, by the opposite parties, due to concealment of factum of different accounts, opened by the complainant, does not debar the opposite parties, from deducting the amount paid to the complainant in excess, on account of interest. The contents of the written version, filed by the opposite parties, are corroborated, by the affidavits, Ext.OP-1 and OP-2, of their officials. The opposite parties, have also produced on record, copies of specimen of applications, Ext.OP-4 and OP-5, required to be furnished by the depositors, at the time of deposit of the amount, under the scheme, whereby they are required to give an undertaking as mentioned at Sr.No.4: I undertake to keep the balance in my saving account, single or joint, at any time within the limits specified in the relevant rules and also furnish on demand from the Post Office Saving Bank, particulars of all such accounts. Since the complainant was not eligible, to deposit extra amount in more than one account beyond the prescribed limit under the scheme, therefore, he was entitled to payment of interest payable on saving account as done by the opposite parties. Therefore, we are constrained, to hold that there is Contd........9 : 9 : 'no deficiency in service' on the part of the opposite parties, so far as, their said act, is concerned. 10. The complainant, has not disclosed, any other amount deducted, from his account, by the opposite parties, from the amount payable to him, at the time of maturity, as alleged by him, in his complaint. Even his counsel has not pressed such an argument in the course of arguments. In their written version, the opposite parties had contended that complaint was filed, by the complainant, against their official Sh.Suresh Kumar, S.P.M. and after enquiry, it was revealed, that the said official, has acted strictly, in accordance, with the provisions of the scheme and rules, on the subject and, has not committed, any illegality, with malafide intention, to harass the complainant. These averment have gone uncontroverted. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, we have come to the irresistible conclusion that instant complaint is bound to fail and the complainant, has not suffered, any physical and mental agony, on account of deduction of amount, payable to him, at the time of maturity of his Fixed Deposit Accounts. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion, that he is, neither entitled to payment of any amount, on account of compensation on that score , nor costs demanded by him, for expenditure incurred, for filing the present complaint. 12. For what has been discussed above, by us, we hereby dismiss the complaint. However, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we leave the parties, to bear their own costs. 13. 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: 16.01.2009 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, P.S.Dhanoa, Member. Member. President.
