DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD

Dated this the 24^th day of May 2011

Present : Smt. Seena.H, President

: Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member

: Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member Date of filing: 5/3/2010

(C.C.No. 33/2010)

1. K.P.Madhavan

S/o.Ayyappan

Kuzhinanpokkil House

Ottapalam Taluk

Palappuram, Palakkad.

(By Advocate K.K.Sudheer)

2. K.Valsalakumari

W/o.K.P.Madhavan

Kalluvettu Kuzhiyil

Ottapalam Taluk

Palakkad _ Complainants

(By Advocate K.K.Sudheer)

V/s

1. Superintendent

Department of Post India

Office of the Superintendent of

Post Office, Ottapalam Division

Ottapalam

(Party in Person)

2. Assistant Post Master

Ottapalam, Palakkad

(Party in Person)

3. Balagopalan,

Geethanjali,

Kinavalllor Post, Palakkad

(By Adv.K.Lakshminarayanan)

4. The Dy.Director of National Savings,

Collectorate, Palakkad. - Opposite parties

(By Adv.Vinod K Kayanat, Govt.Pleader)

O R D E R

By Smt. PREETHA G NAIR, MEMBER

The complainants joined a MIS account in the Post office at Ottapalam on 30/7/2005 for Rs.6,00,000/-. On 18/1/06 the complainants again opened another MIS account for Rs.6,00,000/- under Account No.1108286. The complainants opened accounts through the agent Mr.Balagopalan and he gave necessary details of MIS account. The complainants get Rs.4000/-as interest per month. They received 43 months interest at the rate of 8% in one account. After 6 months the interest rate will increase to 10%. On 17/1/09 without informing complainants one of the account was closed by the opposite parties without giving reason and a sum of Rs.96750/- has recovered from their accounts. Regarding this matter complainants enquired and sent a notice to the Superintendent of Post on 14/10/09. Then they sent a reply notice stated that there is a violation of maximum limit of MIS account, which was not informed to the complainants. The complainants have never signed any declaration regarding the awareness of the limits of the depositing amount. The opposite party given 8% interest to the deposit upto 43 months after that 44^th months interest kept as pending the opposite parties taken back Rs.96,750/- If the deposit is matured the complainants entitled to get Rs.60,000/- as bonus and Rs.50,000/- as compensation. The complainants sent 3 notices dated 14/10/09, 1/11/09 and 9/11/09. But opposite party's reply notice are not proper. Hence, complainants pray for an order directing the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.2,10,750/- as compensation.

Version filed by all opposite parties stating the following contentions. Opposite parties 1 & 2 stated that the post office did not have any direct contact with the complainants at the time of opening of the accounts. Shri.K.Balagopalan the SAS Agent was appointed by the State Government, opening all the accounts of the complainants. As per Rule 4 of the Post office (Monthly income Account) Rule 1987, a depositor may open more than one account subject to the condition that deposits in all accounts taken together shall not exceed rupees Six lakhs in case of a joint account. As per Sub Rules (6) (7) (8) of Rule 8 of Post Office (Monthly Income Account) Rules 1987 deposit exceeding the prescribed limits should be withdrawn by the depositor immediately and the excess deposit shall carry interest at the rate applicable from time to time to the Post Office saving Account. The opposite party 1 & 2 stated that the complainants jointly opened two post office monthly income Account for Rs.2 lakhs cash under account nos.1107666, 1107667 at Ottapalam Head Post Office on 30/7/05. Again a third joint account was opened by them for Rs.2 lakhs on 13/1/06 at the same post office under No.1108273. All the accounts were opened through K.Balagopalan, the SAS agent and the address of the depositors furnished in all accounts was Kuzhinjapokkil, Palappuram. Separate declarations that all the MIS accounts taken together did not exceed the maximum limit were furnished by complainants. Thereafter the complainants opened another MIS account for Rs.6 lakhs under No.1108286 at Ottapalam Post Office on 18/1/06 giving another address Kalluvettukuzhiyil, Kizhur, Panamanna through the same agent while opening this account also a declaration that all the MIS accounts taken together did not exceed the maximum limit was furnished by complainants. The 1^st complainant had a SB account at Ottapalam Head Post Office under No.211473 in which the monthly interest generated by the first three MIS accounts was regularly transferred. The 2^nd complainant opened another SB account under No.214070 for the purpose of transferring the interest to the fourth MIS account. There were more than 5000 MIS accounts at Ottapalam Head Post Office, the case of excess deposit by the complainants was not detected by the post office.

During the audit inspection of Ottapalam Head Post Office, Audit Officer raised an objection regarding the excess deposit in respect of the complainants. As per the direction, Post Master closed the account on 17/9/2009 after obtaining application from the depositor. The account was closed as per the codal provisions recovering the excess paid interest and paying due interest in respect of the excess deposit. So the Opposite parties 1 & 2 prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost.

Opposite party 3 stated that he is an agent of National Saving and authorised to canvas persons to get commission. 3^rd opposite party admitted that the complainants deposited 6 lakhs rupees on 30/7/05. He informed that the maximum amount deposited under MIS is 6 lakhs and the complainants stated that they don't have any deposit. Further 3^rd opposite party stated that his job will end when the amount is deposited and the pass book is handed over to the depositor. The 3^rd opposite party given a leaflet about the scheme issued by the Govt. of India in respect of the deposit made under MIS and after reading and satisfying they have deposited the amount. Later 3^rd opposite party know that the complainants already deposited 6 lakhs. The department has issued notice to 3^rd opposite party to redeposit the commission received with penal interest and other charges. The 3^rd opposite party had not done any illegal act and every act is done in good faith as per rules and regulations made by the Govt. of India. Hence 3^rd opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint.

4^th opposite party stated that the complainants joined a MIS account in the Post Office on 30/7/2005 for Rs.6,00,000/- and another MIS account for Rs.6,00,000/- dated 18/1/2006 with another address. This action reveals the violation of MIS Rule.

Complainants and opposite parties filed chief affidavits and documents. Ext.A1 to A8 marked on the side of the complainants. Ext.B1 to B15 marked on the side of the opposite parties. Matter Heard.

Issues to be considered are

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties ?

2. If so, what is the relief and cost entitled to the complainants ?

Issue I & II

Admittedly the complainants deposited MIS accounts for Rs.6 lakhs under account No.1107666, 1107667 and 1108273. The address of the complainants furnished in respect of the above said accounts was Kuzhinhupokkil House, Palappuram. As Ext.B5, B6 and B7 shows the address of the complainants was Kuzhinhupokkil House, Palappuram. In Ext.B8 again the complainants had opened another MIS account for Rs.6,00,000/- under Acount No.1108286 giving another address Kalluvettukuzhiyil, Kizhur. The complainants has joined the MIS account through the SAS agent Balagopalan. In Ext.B5, B6, B7 and B8 the complainants certified that all the MIS accounts taken all together do not exceed the maximum limit. In Ext.B2 and B3 shows that a depositor may open 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. The complainants given different address in MIS accounts. No evidence was produced by the complainants to prove the complainants residing in two address. The Opposite party 1 and 2 stated that the complainants opened the MIS accounts through the SAS agent as OP3. Therefore the 3^rd opposite party has to know about the accounts of complainants and the different address of the complainants. The opposite party 1 & 2 filed version and stated that opposite party 3 & 4 are essential to implead. Subsequently they were impleaded as supplemental opposite party 3 & 4. The complainant's first contention is that no prescribed manual is given to him. The complainants stated that they opened accounts through the agent Balagopalan. Subsequently the agent was impleaded as opposite party 3. But the complainants not cross examined the 3^rd opposite party to prove the manual not given to them. In Ext.B2 – 4. Opening of Accounts – 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. In Ext.B14 brochure also shows the same aspect. The 3^rd opposite party stated that he informed the complainants to the maximum amount deposited under MIS is rupees 6 lakhs. Then the complainants stated that they don't have any deposit. In Ext.B5, B6, B7 and B8 shows all the deposits in the name of complainants opened through opposite party 3. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite party produced Ext.B12 stated that the complainants submitted application for closure of the account. No objection was raised by the complainants to marking of Ext.B12 document. In the Vakkalath the 1^st complainant is residing in Kuzhinanpokkil House, Palappuram and the 2^nd complainant is residing in Kalluvettukuzhiyil House, Kizhur. In Ext.A1, Ext.A3 shows that the 1^st complainant residing in Kalluvettukuzhiyil House, Kizhur. In Ext.A6 the 1^st complainant residing in Kuzhinhupokkil House, Palappuram. These documents clearly shows the complainants stated different address in each documents. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite party stated that the complainants stated different address in the MIS account.

In the above discussions we are of the view that the complainants miserably failed to prove the deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence the complaint dismissed.

Pronounced in the open court on the 24^th day of May 2011

Sd/-

Smt.Seena.H President

Sd/- Smt.Preetha.G.Nair

Member

Sd/-

Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K

Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Ext.A1 – Copy of the Lr. From the petitioner to the Post Master General

dt.14/10/09

Ext.A2 – Reply letter from Dept.of Post, Trivandrum by Asst.Director

dt.20/10/09

Ext.A3 – Copy of Lr.sent by the Petitioner to the Post Master General

dt.9/11/09

Ext.A4 – Reply letter from Superintendent dated 12/11/09

Ext.A5 – Reply letter send by Post Master General, Northern Region, Kerala

dated 17/11/09

Ext.A6 – Copy of Letter send to the Superintendent of Post Office dtd.

25/11/09

Ext.A7 – Reply letter from Superintendent, Ottapalam Division dt.16/12/09

Ext.A8 – Pass Book

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Ext.B1 – Copy of Proceedings of Dist.Collector, dtd.28/8/09

Ext.B2 – Copy of Post Office (Monthly Income Account) Rules, 1987 Chapter 13

Ext.B3 – Copy of Gazette dated Feb-2000

Ext.B4 – Copy of Gazette dated May-2002

Ext.B5 – Copy of Application for opening Account of K.P.Madhavan (1107666)

Ext.B6 – Copy of Application for opening Account of K.P.Madhavan (1107667)

Ext.B7 – Copy of Application for opening Account of K.P.Madhavan (1108273)

Ext.B8 – Copy of Application for opening Account of K.P.Madhavan (1108286)

Ext.B9 – Copy of Application for opening Account of K.P.Madhavan (211473)

Ext.B10 – Copy of Application for opening Account of K.Valsalakumari (214070)

Ext.B11 – Copy of Audit Objection by Posts and Telecommunications Audit

Office, Trivandrum.

Ext.B12 – Copy of Account Closure Form (SB-7A) in A/c No.1108286

Ext.B13 – Copy of Sec 14 of Govt.Saving Bank Act 1873.

Ext.B14 – Brochure of Saving Bank Scheme

Ext.B15 – Copy of Notification No.G.S.R.80(E) dt.1/2/2000