<br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL <br /> FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 07th OCTOBER 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT:- SRI.A.M.BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NOs.1693/2008 & 1694/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.1693/2008COMPLAINANTCOMPLAINT NO.1694/2008COMPLAINANT Sri.Suresh Bhatia,S/o M.M.Bhatia,Aged about 48 years, No.4406-7-8, 4th Floor,High Point – IV, 45, Palace Road,Bangalore – 560 001.Sri.M.M.Bhatia,S/o Motumal Bhatia,Aged about 72 years,No.4406-7-8, 4th Floor,High Point – IV,45, Palance Road,Bangalore – 560 001.Advocate (Sri.M.S.Narayan)<br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES V/s1. The Chief Post Master General,Palace Road,Bangalore – 560 001.2. The Asst. Chief Post Master (SB),Bangalore – GPO,Bangalore – 560 001.Advocate(Sri.A.N.Gangadharaiah)<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> These are the two complaints filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainants, seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay the interest amount deducted from their deposits as well as compensation of Rs.50,000/- on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> As the opposite parties in both the complaints are common, the question involved, relief claimed being same, in the interest of justice, in order to avoid repetition of facts and multiciplity of reasoning, these two cases stand disposed of by this common order.<br /> 2. In complaint No.1693/2008 complainant Sri.Suresh Bhatia is a son of Sri.M.M.Bhatia the complainant in complaint No.1694/2008. Both of these complainants made some deposits with the OP under the HUF PPF scheme for 15 years. After 15 years an option was given either to continue the said deposit or to withdraw, both the complainants shown their inclination in continuing the said deposits. Even after the date of maturity OP accepted the continuance and paid the interest accrued on the said deposits. According to the complainant in complaint No.1693/2008 as on 31.03.2008 OP is liable to pay Rs.6,25,977/- which includes principal and interest and in complaint No.1694/2008 OP is liable to pay Rs.7,41,691/- that is also as on 31.03.2008. With all that unfortunately OP sent a letter to the complainants that the said deposits subsequent to maturity are an irregular deposit and they are not liable to pay the interest. Thus in complaint No.1693/2008 OP deducted an interest of Rs.1,06,038/- and sent a cheque only for Rs.5,19,939/- dated 06.06.2008 and with respect to complaint No.1694/2008 OP deducted the interest of Rs.1,29,895/- and paid only Rs.6,11,796/- as against Rs.7,41,691/-. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainants to OP to rectify the said mistake and pay entire interest in due went in futile. OP even got issued notice. There was no proper response from the OP. Thus complainants felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. For no fault of theirs they were made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under the circumstances they are advised to file these complaints and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 3. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainants in toto. According to OP complainants are bound by the terms and conditions and the provisions of the said scheme. After the maturity any other deposit made by the complainants will be treated as irregular deposit. Complainants have not submitted their written consent in form No.H within one year from the date of maturity so as to continue the deposit. So during the course of inspection OP felt that subsequent to maturity the deposit of the complainant is irregular. Hence as per the provisions they are entitled to deduct the interest which is paid inadvertently subsequent to date of maturity. Accordingly they refunded the rest of the amount as contended by the complainants. OP acted in accordance with the provisions of law. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Complainants are the defaulters in not submitting the form No.H as such they can’t allege either carelessness or negligence on the part of the OP. Complainants are devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 4. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainants filed their affidavit evidence and produced their documents. OP have also filed the affidavit evidence. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 5. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainants have Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainants are <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 6. 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:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Affirmative<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 7. At the outset it is not at dispute that these father and son the complainants have deposited certain amount with the OP under the HUF PPF scheme, which was for 15 years. It is also not at dispute that the deposit made by Sri.Suresh Bhatia matured on 01.04.2005 and that of Sri.M.M.Bhatia matured on 31.03.2005. Now it is the contention of the complainants that even after the date of maturity they went on depositing the amount. OP accepted the same and they have also paid the interest right from 01.04.2005 to 06.06.2008 in both the deposits.<br /> <br /> 8. It is further contended by the complainants that as on 31.03.2008 complainant Sri.Suresh Bhatia was entitled for Rs.6,25,977/- and complainant Sri.M.M.Bhatia is entitled for Rs.7,41,691/-. With all that OP arbitrarily caused them the notice and deducted the interest that is paid for the period 01.04.2005 to 06.06.2008. Instead of paying Rs.6,25,977/- OP paid only Rs.5,19,939/- in complaint No.1693/2008 and in complaint No.1694/2008 OP paid only Rs.6,11,796/- as against Rs.7,41,691/-.<br /> <br /> 9. Though complainant immediately brought to the notice of the OP about the mistake committed by them, OP didn’t heed to their request and demand. Complainants even got issued notice. Again there was no response. The evidence of the complainants appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard their sworn testimony. It is a quality of evidence that is more important than that of the quantity. <br /> <br /> 10. As against this unimpeachable of the complainants the defence set out by the OP is that complainants are bound by HUF PPF scheme rules and regulations. If the complainants are interested to continue their deposit after the date of maturity they are required to submit form No.H within one year from the date of maturity, but they have not done so. Hence there is a default on the part of the complainants as they have violated the G.O issued by the Government of India.<br /> <br /> 11. If the OP feels that after the date of maturity any deposit become irregular and no investors can dump their money, it would have straight away instructed the complainant to withdraw the amount after the date of maturity, OP’s are bound to know the rules and regulations and the object of the scheme. It unfortunate that OP at one breath accept the deposits and pay the interest as per the rules and regulations and thereafter they open their eye on the basis of the G.O and take up the defence that the subsequent deposit after the date of maturity is irregular and they are not liable to pay the interest. It is unfortunate. OP can’t breath hot and cold.<br /> <br /> 12. Having taken note of the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears OP in order to save its skin out of sin with regard to their carelessness, negligence and dereliction of duty committed by its officials wants to through the blame and burden on the complainant. As admitted by the OP themselves complainants are entitled for huge amount of interest on the said deposit nearly Rs.1,06,038/- from 01.04.2005 to 06.06.2008 in complainant No.1693/2008 and in complaint No.1694/2008 complainant is entitled for interest of Rs.1,29,895/-. With all that what made the OP to deny the legal right of the complainant arbitrarily is not known.<br /> <br /> 13. If the OP is very much sure about the G.O and scheme and the rules and regulations there under it would have intimated the complainant in writing to draw the amount after the maturity or at least send form No.H with in one year so as to continue it. No such instructions or intimation is given to the complainants. So suomoto deduction of the said interest referred to above in our view amounts to deficiency in service. If complainants were intimated well in advance in that way they would have deposited their hard earned money with some other financial institutions and accrued a lump sum interest. Because of the carelessness of the OP complainants are deprived of the benefit. <br /> <br /> 14. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case in our view the acts and deeds of the OP amounts to deficiency in service. For no fault of theirs complainants were made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under such circumstances they are entitled for the relief claimed. In our opinion the justice will be met by directing the OP to refund respective interest amount as claimed by the complainants and pay some litigation cost. Accordingly we answer point Nos.1 & 2 and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> Complaints are allowed.<br /> <br /> 1) In complaint No.1693/2008, OP is directed to pay Rs.1,06,038/- along with litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.<br /> <br /> 2) In complaint No.1694/2008, OP is directed to pay Rs.1,29,895/- along with litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.<br /> <br /> <br /> This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.<br /> <br /> This original order shall be kept in the file of the complaint No.1693/2008 and a copy of it shall be placed in other respective file.<br /> (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 07th day of October 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> V.l.n* <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />