The Chief Post Master General V/S Parasmal M Chopra (HUF) - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Bangalore 2nd Additional

CC/2219/2009

Parasmal M Chopra (HUF) - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chief Post Master General - Opp.Party(s)

G.S.Mahadevappa

23 Dec 2009

ORDER

IInd ADDL. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BANGALORE URBAN
No.1/7, Swathi Complex, 4th Floor, Seshadripuram, Bangalore-560 020
consumer case(CC) No. CC/2219/2009

Parasmal M Chopra (HUF)						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
The Chief Post Master General The Assistant Chief Post Master (SB)						...........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

Date of Filing: 15.09.2009 Date of Order: 23.12.2009 BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20 Dated: 23RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2009 PRESENT Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President. Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member. COMPLAINT NO: 2219 OF 2009 Parasmal M Chopra(HUF), S/o Late Misrimal Chopra, No.186/2, II Main Road, Chamarajpet, Bangalore-560018. Complainant V/S 1. The Chief Post Master General, Palace Road, Bangalore-560001. 2. The Assistant Chief Post Master (SB), Bangalore GPO, Bangalore-560001. Opposite Parties ORDER By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts of the case are that, the complainant has deposited an amount under the scheme HUF and PPF for 15 years which was extended for further period of five years with the opposite party in PPF A/c No.6000846. The total amount payable to the complainant as on 07/07/2009 was Rs.16,30,863/-. But the opposite party paid Rs. 13,07,900/- by way of cheque. Balance amount of R.3,22,963/- is still payable. In spite of repeated demands payment is not made. Complainant is made to suffer mental agony and financial loss. When the opposite party accepted the deposit they are bound by law to pay interest. It is not open for the opposite party to refuse the payment of interest. The Forum in a similar case in Complaints No.1693/2008 and 1694/2008 between Suresh Bharia Vs. The Chief Post Master and Sri. M.M.M. Bhatia Vs. The Chief Post Master, the complaints are allowed and ordered to pay the amount. Hence, the complainant prayed to direct the opposite party to pay Rs.3,22,963/- together with interest from 07/07/2009 till the date of payment. 2. The opposite party put in appearance through Advocate and defence version filed admitting that the complainant has opened Public Provident Fund Account and deposits the amount under Public Provident Fund Hindu Undivided Family Scheme for 15 years which was extended for a period of 5 years. As per the Government of India instructions PPF Accounts opened by HUF before 13/05/2005 will continue till the maturity and will not be extended further. Hence, interest of Rs.3,22,963/- noted in the pass book was not paid though the balance in the pass book was Rs.16,30,863/-. Interest is not paid as the deposits made after a maturity does not earn interest. The action taken by the opposite party is in accordance with the directorate instructions. Therefore, the opposite party requested to dismiss the complaint. 3. Affidavit evidence of both the parties filed. Heard the arguments. I have gone through the pleadings and documents. 4. The points for consideration are:- 1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for? REASONS 5. The complainant has produced pass book of his account issued by the opposite party. On perusal of the pass book the opposite party has made entry in the pass book stating that total amount payable is Rs.16,30,863/- and payment made by the opposite party through cheque is Rs.13,07,900/-. In the pass book it has been clearly mentioned that the balance amount payable is Rs.3,22,963/-. The entries are made in the pass book by the opposite party himself. Therefore, now the opposite party cannot deny to pay the interest amount. The entries made in the pass book reflect the correct position. Therefore, it will not lie in the mouth of the opposite party that they are not liable to pay interest on the deposit amount. The entries made in the pass book are made by the opposite party, this pass book being an authenticated document it will act as an estoppel against the opposite party. If at all there was no liability on the part of the opposite party to pay interest on the deposits made after maturity, the question of making entry in the pass book showing the total amount payable is Rs.16,30,863/- could not have arisen. The opposite party himself has made calculation and the amount paid to the complainant has been mentioned and also the remaining amount payable is also shown in the pass book. Now the opposite party cannot turn round and take defence that interest is not payable. Admittedly, the opposite party has accepted the deposit from the complainant even after the maturity period. The opposite party has extended the scheme till 31/03/2011 and this is reflected in the pass book. When this is the case, when the opposite party accepted the scheme and accepted the deposits from the complainant how can the opposite party take defence that it is not liable to pay interest after the period of maturity. The only defence taken by the opposite party in support of their contention is the Government Order referred in their version. The copy of the G.O is produced by the opposite party. As per the said G.O it is stated that the accounts opened by juristic persons (HUF, Trusts, Provident Funds etc.,) on or after 13/05/2005 under any of the Small Savings Scheme including Public Provident Fund shall be treated as void ab-initio and immediate action should be taken to close such accounts/certificates and to refund the deposits without any interest to the depositors. By reading this G.O it is clear that the opposite party should not have accepted the deposits and even if the deposits were accepted after 13/05/2005 the opposite party should have taken immediate action/steps to close such accounts and to return the deposits to the depositors. But in this case, admittedly the opposite party has not taken any immediate action to close the account of the complainant. On the other hand, the opposite party had accepted the deposits from the complainant even after 13/05/2005. Therefore, since the opposite party has failed to take immediate action to close the account and return the deposits to the depositors who have made deposits on or after 13/05/2005 is bound to pay interest in law on the deposit amounts. On account of inaction of the opposite party in not taking immediate action the complainant/depositor cannot suffer. It is just, fair and reasonable to pay interest on the deposit amount. The opposite party could have immediately informed the complainant and refunded the deposits. If that step was taken, the complainant could have deposit his amount in other Bank or financial institution and earned interest. So, under these circumstances there is absolutely no fault or omission on the part of the complainant. On the other hand, there is a clear cut omission on the part of the opposite party in not taking immediate action as per the Government Order referred by the opposite party. So under these circumstances, there is absolutely no merit or substance in the defence taken by the opposite party that the complainant is not entitled for the interest. The complainant has produced judgment copy of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cauvery Bhavan, Bangalore passed in Complaint No.1693/2008 and 1694/2008 wherein the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in a similar facts and circumstances of the case had allowed the complaint against the Chief Post Master General and directed the opposite party to pay interest. Denial to pay interest by the opposite party definitely amounts to a deficiency in service under the provisions of C.P Act. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has passed orders on 07/10/2008. The order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cauvery Bhavan, Bangalore has become final because the opposite party has not at all preferred any appeal. Therefore, there is absolutely no scope to take different view which was taken by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cauvery Bhavan, Bangalore. Taking any view of the matter, after considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, it is a fit case to allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 3,22,963/- to the complainant as per their own calculation and entry made in the pass book. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:- ORDER 6. The complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.3,22,963/- to the complainant immediately. The complainant is also entitled interest on that amount at 6% p.a from the date of filing complaint till payment/realisation. 7. The complainant is also entitled Rs.2,000/- as cost of the present proceedings from the opposite parties. 8. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. 9. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 23RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2009. Order accordingly, PRESIDENT I concur the above findings. MEMBER rhr.

Date of Filing: 15.09.2009 Date of Order: 23.12.2009 BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20 Dated: 23RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2009 PRESENT Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President. Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member. COMPLAINT NO: 2219 OF 2009 Parasmal M Chopra(HUF), S/o Late Misrimal Chopra, No.186/2, II Main Road, Chamarajpet, Bangalore-560018. Complainant V/S 1. The Chief Post Master General, Palace Road, Bangalore-560001. 2. The Assistant Chief Post Master (SB), Bangalore GPO, Bangalore-560001. Opposite Parties ORDER By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts of the case are that, the complainant has deposited an amount under the scheme HUF and PPF for 15 years which was extended for further period of five years with the opposite party in PPF A/c No.6000846. The total amount payable to the complainant as on 07/07/2009 was Rs.16,30,863/-. But the opposite party paid Rs. 13,07,900/- by way of cheque. Balance amount of R.3,22,963/- is still payable. In spite of repeated demands payment is not made. Complainant is made to suffer mental agony and financial loss. When the opposite party accepted the deposit they are bound by law to pay interest. It is not open for the opposite party to refuse the payment of interest. The Forum in a similar case in Complaints No.1693/2008 and 1694/2008 between Suresh Bharia Vs. The Chief Post Master and Sri. M.M.M. Bhatia Vs. The Chief Post Master, the complaints are allowed and ordered to pay the amount. Hence, the complainant prayed to direct the opposite party to pay Rs.3,22,963/- together with interest from 07/07/2009 till the date of payment. 2. The opposite party put in appearance through Advocate and defence version filed admitting that the complainant has opened Public Provident Fund Account and deposits the amount under Public Provident Fund Hindu Undivided Family Scheme for 15 years which was extended for a period of 5 years. As per the Government of India instructions PPF Accounts opened by HUF before 13/05/2005 will continue till the maturity and will not be extended further. Hence, interest of Rs.3,22,963/- noted in the pass book was not paid though the balance in the pass book was Rs.16,30,863/-. Interest is not paid as the deposits made after a maturity does not earn interest. The action taken by the opposite party is in accordance with the directorate instructions. Therefore, the opposite party requested to dismiss the complaint. 3. Affidavit evidence of both the parties filed. Heard the arguments. I have gone through the pleadings and documents. 4. The points for consideration are:- 1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for? REASONS 5. The complainant has produced pass book of his account issued by the opposite party. On perusal of the pass book the opposite party has made entry in the pass book stating that total amount payable is Rs.16,30,863/- and payment made by the opposite party through cheque is Rs.13,07,900/-. In the pass book it has been clearly mentioned that the balance amount payable is Rs.3,22,963/-. The entries are made in the pass book by the opposite party himself. Therefore, now the opposite party cannot deny to pay the interest amount. The entries made in the pass book reflect the correct position. Therefore, it will not lie in the mouth of the opposite party that they are not liable to pay interest on the deposit amount. The entries made in the pass book are made by the opposite party, this pass book being an authenticated document it will act as an estoppel against the opposite party. If at all there was no liability on the part of the opposite party to pay interest on the deposits made after maturity, the question of making entry in the pass book showing the total amount payable is Rs.16,30,863/- could not have arisen. The opposite party himself has made calculation and the amount paid to the complainant has been mentioned and also the remaining amount payable is also shown in the pass book. Now the opposite party cannot turn round and take defence that interest is not payable. Admittedly, the opposite party has accepted the deposit from the complainant even after the maturity period. The opposite party has extended the scheme till 31/03/2011 and this is reflected in the pass book. When this is the case, when the opposite party accepted the scheme and accepted the deposits from the complainant how can the opposite party take defence that it is not liable to pay interest after the period of maturity. The only defence taken by the opposite party in support of their contention is the Government Order referred in their version. The copy of the G.O is produced by the opposite party. As per the said G.O it is stated that the accounts opened by juristic persons (HUF, Trusts, Provident Funds etc.,) on or after 13/05/2005 under any of the Small Savings Scheme including Public Provident Fund shall be treated as void ab-initio and immediate action should be taken to close such accounts/certificates and to refund the deposits without any interest to the depositors. By reading this G.O it is clear that the opposite party should not have accepted the deposits and even if the deposits were accepted after 13/05/2005 the opposite party should have taken immediate action/steps to close such accounts and to return the deposits to the depositors. But in this case, admittedly the opposite party has not taken any immediate action to close the account of the complainant. On the other hand, the opposite party had accepted the deposits from the complainant even after 13/05/2005. Therefore, since the opposite party has failed to take immediate action to close the account and return the deposits to the depositors who have made deposits on or after 13/05/2005 is bound to pay interest in law on the deposit amounts. On account of inaction of the opposite party in not taking immediate action the complainant/depositor cannot suffer. It is just, fair and reasonable to pay interest on the deposit amount. The opposite party could have immediately informed the complainant and refunded the deposits. If that step was taken, the complainant could have deposit his amount in other Bank or financial institution and earned interest. So, under these circumstances there is absolutely no fault or omission on the part of the complainant. On the other hand, there is a clear cut omission on the part of the opposite party in not taking immediate action as per the Government Order referred by the opposite party. So under these circumstances, there is absolutely no merit or substance in the defence taken by the opposite party that the complainant is not entitled for the interest. The complainant has produced judgment copy of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cauvery Bhavan, Bangalore passed in Complaint No.1693/2008 and 1694/2008 wherein the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in a similar facts and circumstances of the case had allowed the complaint against the Chief Post Master General and directed the opposite party to pay interest. Denial to pay interest by the opposite party definitely amounts to a deficiency in service under the provisions of C.P Act. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has passed orders on 07/10/2008. The order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cauvery Bhavan, Bangalore has become final because the opposite party has not at all preferred any appeal. Therefore, there is absolutely no scope to take different view which was taken by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cauvery Bhavan, Bangalore. Taking any view of the matter, after considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, it is a fit case to allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 3,22,963/- to the complainant as per their own calculation and entry made in the pass book. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:- ORDER 6. The complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.3,22,963/- to the complainant immediately. The complainant is also entitled interest on that amount at 6% p.a from the date of filing complaint till payment/realisation. 7. The complainant is also entitled Rs.2,000/- as cost of the present proceedings from the opposite parties. 8. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. 9. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 23RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2009. Order accordingly, PRESIDENT I concur the above findings. MEMBER rhr.