Orissa

Cuttak

CC/122/2016

Guru Prasad Sahoo - Complainant(s)

Versus

Superintendent of Post Office - Opp.Party(s)

R K Pattanaik

29 Aug 2017

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,CUTTACK.

                                                                                    C.C. No.122 of 16

 

Guru Prasad Sahoo,

Res. of Kantol,PO:Athagarh,

Dist:Cuttack-754029,

At present Plot No.C/1176,Sector-6,

CDA,Cuttack-753014.                                                                           … Complainant.

 

                Vrs.

 

1.         Superintendent of Pot Office,

Cuttack South Division,

Cuttack.

 

2.         Head Post Master,

Athagarh Head Post Office,

At/PO:Athagarh,Dist:Cuttack,

PIN-754029.                                                                                                  … Opp. Parties.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

3.         Sabitri Dei,

W/O:Late Bharat Sahoo,

Res. of Kantol,PO:Athagarh,

Dist:Cuttack-754029.

 

4.         Diptilata Sahoo,

D/O: Late Bharat Sahoo,

Res. of Kantol,PO:Athagarh,

Dist:Cuttack-754029.                                                            …Proforma  Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:               Sri Dhruba Charan Barik,LL.B. President.

Sri Bichitra Nanda Tripathy, Member.

Smt. Sarmistha Nath, Member (W).

 

Date of filing:   28.09.2016

Date of Order: 29.08.2017

 

For the complainant:           Sri R.K.Pattnaik,Adv. & Associates.

For Opp.Parties 1 & 2          Sri K.R.Mohanty,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P No.3 & 4:          None.

 

Sri Dhruba Charan Barik,President.

                The complainant having attributed deficiency in service to and unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps 1 &2 has filed this case seeking appropriate relief against them in terms of his prayer in the complaint petition.

1. The facts of the complainant’s case succinctly stated are that the complainant has opened 16 nos. of accounts with the O.P No.2 bearing No. 334280,334505,334506,334960,334961,334962,334394,334395,334396,334397,335710,335820,336003,336004,336005,336361 during the period from 29.12.2009 to 25.10.2014 under Monthly Postal Income Scheme.    Some of the above accounts are solely in the name of the complainant and the rests are joint accounts in the name of complainant along with proforma O.P No.3 or 4.  It is important to leave a mention here that maximum deposit that can be made by the depositor in a single account and the depositors share in the joint account shall be limited to Rs.4.5 lakhs as per Monthly Income Scheme rule.  All the above accounts were made operational with the initial deposit of different amounts made by the complainant. 
2. On 24.11.2015  O.P.2 intimated the complainant vide his letter of the even date that the deposits made by the complainant in the above accounts has already exceeded the maximum limit of Rs.4.5 lakhs and this fact has been pointed out by the audit team during course of internal audit of office of O.P.2.  It is specifically contended in the said letter that the complainant has deposited a sum of Rs.6,16,500/- in  single accounts and joint accounts being  proportion of his share.  Thus taking the excess limit into consideration it is stated that the complainant has deposited excess sum of Rs.1,66,500/- and consequently he has received interest of Rs.38,386/- up to November,2015 on the said excess amount.  As such he was requested to close his accounts and take refund of the excess deposits so also to refund the excess interest paid to him.  Copy of the letter dt.24.11.15 of O.P.2 has been filed and marked as Annexure-1.  The complainant in response to Annexure-1 has replied to O.P.2 by his letter dt.23.12.15 taking a plea of complete denial of the contents of Annexure-1.  It is specifically clarified in the said letter by the complainant that he has deposited only Rs.1,54,500/- in a single account which does not exceed the limit prescribed under the rules.  So far as the joint accounts are concerned, it is further stated that his share of deposit is only Rs.3,04,500/- which is also within the limit of the maximum deposit as per the said rule.  The calculations, if any, of the above deposits made by the said P & T audit is based on incorrect facts and wrong interpretation of the rules.  Further the complainant has also taken the clear stand in his letter dt.23.12.15 that the so called audit report pursuant to which excess deposits have been pointed out by the audit team, has not been supplied to him nor any specific account number has been intimated by  O.P.2 to him to ascertain at his level whether the objections raised by the audit team with regard to the excess deposit is correct.  In absence of such audit report or authenticated copy thereof and in view of the failure of O.P.2 to indicate the specific account nos. having excess deposits, the complainant was not in a position to explain the facts Annexure-2 is the copy of the letter dt.23.12.15 of the complainant addressed to O.P.2 in this regard.
3. Even after receipt of Annexure-2, the O.P.2 did not respond to the complainant in any manner for about 4 months.  During that period he also did not release the money accrued to the complainant under the M.I.S scheme and forced him to close his accounts in compliance with the objections raised by the audit team.
4. It has been specifically stated that M.I.S account bearing Nos.334280 and 3343942,334397 have already matured on 29.12.15 and 13.2.16 respectively.  But O.P.2 refused to allow the complainant to withdraw money from those accounts.  Besides that, the complainant was disallowed to withdraw money from his S.B. Account Nos.092846693 and 0928466948 in which the interest from the above M.I.S accounts are deposited.  The complainant then moved O.P.1, the higher authority of O.P.2 to take appropriate action in the matter vide his representation dt.06.04.16, the copy of which has been filed in this case and marked as Annexure-3.  The O.P.1 thereafter has replied to the complainant in response to Annexure-3 vide his letter dt.31.08.16 wherein the latter has clearly indicated that unless the aforesaid accounts are regularized in compliance with the observations made by the Postal Audit Team, the account of the complainant under M.I.S scheme cannot be made operational.  Annexure-4 is the copy of the letter dt.31.08.16 of the O.P.1 stated above.
5. The averments in the complaint clearly reveals that  O.P.2 or any other employee on his behalf while accepting deposits made by the complainant under M.I.S scheme has never raised objection that the amount in the account of the complainant has already exceeded the maximum limit specified under the rule.  It is therefore stated that the O.Ps are estopped from raising such objection once they have accepted the aforesaid deposits made by the complainant. The high handed action of both the O.Ps in the matter as stated above clearly goes to show that there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part by not allowing the complainant to withdraw what he is legally entitled to get from his accounts as well as forcing him to close his accounts.  This arbitrary exercise of the power of both the O.Ps has caused serious mental agony and hardship to the complainant who has also incurred huge financial loss due to their illegal acts.  It is therefore prayed to direct the O.P who is solely liable for accepting the deposits to pay the matured value of the accounts under the M.I.S scheme together with interest after maturity of those accounts till the date of such payment without any deduction and also to direct the O.Ps to allow him to continue those accounts under the scheme which have not been matured in the mean time till its maturity by paying periodic interest accrued thereon without any further deduction.  It is also prayed that O.Ps may be directed to pay compensation of Rs.18,00,000/- to him together with cost of litigation of Rs.50,000/- and any other reliefs as deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.
6. Both the O.Ps entered appearance and filed written version of their case.  At the outset it is stated that the present complaint is fully misconceived and unsustainable in the eye of law and there is also no cause of action to file the same.  The complainant is also not a consumer as defined U/S-2 of the C.P. Act and the O.Ps are not guilty of rendering deficient service or following unfair trade practice alleged by the complainant in any manner.
7. With regard to factual averments, it is stated that out of 16 accounts opened by the complainant under M.I.S scheme 12 are joint accounts and rest four are single accounts and he has made excess deposits in both single and joint accounts which have been specifically described in Annexure-A and this has been pointed out by the audit team during internal audit of office of O.P.2.  It is further stated that at the time of opening of the above accounts, the concerned account holder has given a declaration that his deposits shall not exceed the permissible limit under the M.I.S rule and as such O.P.2 is no way liable for accepting the excess deposits as alleged in the complaint.   With regard to supply of copy of the audit report, it is stated that the O.Ps are not bound to supply the copy of the said document to the complainant especially when the essential portion of the said audit report as is  relevant for the purpose of the case,  has been intimated to the complainant vide Annexure-1.  The other material averments in the complaint have been denied.

In the above premises, it is stated that the complaint lodged by the complainant is fabricated and baseless and the same is liable to be dismissed.

8. It is important to note here that learned advocate for the complainant has filed two separate petitions dt.30.1.2017 with prayers for directing the O.Ps to release the admitted maturity value under M.I.S Account bearing Nos.33428,334505,334960,334961,334962,334394,334395,334396 & 334397 which have been matured on 29.12.2015,13.04.2016,13.4.2016,17.09.2016,17.9.2016,17.9.2016,13.2.2016,13.2.2016,13.2.2016 & 13.2.2016 respectively and also to direct them to produce the audit report dt.25.3.15 in this case for the purpose of hearing.  But the learned counsel for the O.Ps did not take any part in the hearing of interim petitions as well as in the main case.  The above two petitions would be accordingly considered and disposed of while disposing the original case.
9. We have gone through the case records, the pleadings of the parties as well as the annexures produced before us by the respective sides.
10. The learned counsel for the complainant while advancing his argument in the court has fairly submitted that the so called audit report dt.25.3.15 relied upon by both the O.Ps, is the most important document relevant for the purpose of this case and its non-production in the court without just cause has prejudiced the complainant.  The O.P.2, according to the learned counsel, has also failed to furnish the specific M.I.S account nos. wherein the deposit made by the complainant is said to have exceeded the maximum limit.  Annexure-1 is completely silent about the specific M.I.S account numbers showing the maximum deposit in excess of the limit fixed under the M.I.S rule.  Annexure-A contains the list of all 16 M.I.S deposits stated above where the deposits made by the complainant are said to have been exceeded the maximum limit.  But the submission of the learned counsel for the complainant as well as the averments made in the complaint petition clearly reveals the specific amount deposited in the M.I.S accounts of the complainant which has not exceeded the maximum limit under the rules.  The next argument of the learned counsel for the complainant pursuant to the averments to the complaint petition is that the O.P No.2 being fully aware of maximum limit of deposit under M.I.S rules as accepted the deposit from the complainant at the time of opening of the accounts.  As such he is estopped from making the very objection that the complainant has made deposit in excess of the maximum limit. In this connection he has also placed reliance on a decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Odisha reported in 1999(ii) OLR 564(Rajat Kumar Rath and another Vrs. Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance with its Secretary and others).  It has been observed in that case that the Postal authorities cannot ask the depositor under Postal Monthly Income Scheme to recover the interest already paid to him on his deposit on the ground that his deposit has crossed the limit fixed under M.I.S rules.  It has also been held that the Postal authorities have never intimated the depositor about the outer limit of the deposit of the amount under the said scheme.  It is therefore held that the Postal authorities asking for recovery of the interest from the depositor is wrong.  The attention of this court is further drawn to another decision of the Hon’ble State C.D.R.Commision,Odisha reported in 2000(1) OLR(CSR) -9 (The Sr. Post Master, Bhubaneswar G.P.O Vrs. Sri Byomkesh Ghose).  In the aforesaid decision the Hon’ble President of the State Commission has categorically held that the appellant in that case cannot demand recovery of the excess interest already paid to the respondent on the basis of observation made in the audit report that the deposited amount was in excess of the limit prescribed under M.I.S rules.  Further direction was issued to the appellant that if any of the deposits under the said scheme have matured in the mean time, the respondent shall be entitled to receive the interest as well as the principal amount as per the rule.
11. Taking into consideration, the ratio of the aforesaid decisions and the facts and circumstances of the case and in absence of any submission made to the contrary on behalf of the O.Ps, it is held that they are found guilty of rendering deficient service as well as following unfair trade practice.  Hence ordered;

 

 

ORDER

The case of the complainant is allowed on contest against the O.Ps.  The O.P.2 is directed to pay the maturity value of the accounts which have already been matured together with interest as chargeable on deposits under the M.I.S scheme after the date of maturity till the date of payment without any deduction and the O.Ps are also directed to allow the complainant to continue the other M.I.S accounts which have not been matured in the mean time till its maturity by paying periodic interest accrued thereon without any further deduction.  The O.Ps are further directed to pay compensation of Rs.2.00 lakhs for causing mental agony and harassment by forcing the complainant to close his accounts without any justifiable reason as well as to pay litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- to him.  This order shall be given effect to within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by the Hon’ble President in the Open Court on this the 29^th    day of August, 2017 under the seal and signature of this Forum.

                                                                                                                                                  

    (   Sri D.C.Barik )

                                                                                                                       President.

                                                                                                             (Sri B.N.Tripathy )

                                                                                                                         Member.

                                                                                                                (Smt. Sarmistha Nath)

                           Member(W)