Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/169/2013

Kuppammal - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

R.Kannan

02 May 2016

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   27.05.2013

                                                                        Date of Order :   02.05.2016.

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI(SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM M.A.M.L.,                     : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

                 DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

 

C.C.NO.169/2013

MONDAY THIS  2^nd   DAY OF MAY 2016

 

1. Kuppammal, 

No.5, 1^st Street, K.K.Nagar,

Thirumullaivoyal,

Chennai 600 062.  

 

2. Kousalya,

No.65-A, A.G.S.Colony,

Indira Gandhi Street,

Alwarthiru Nagar,

Chennai – 87.

 

3. Lalitha,

No.19, Iyam Perumal Street,

Royapattah,

Chennai – 14.

 

4. A.F. Sureshchander,

307, S.V.Nagar Extension,

Perumalpattu,

Thiruvallur District.                                   ..Complainant

 

                                         ..Vs..

 

1.  The Postmaster General (South),

Anna Salai,

Chennai -2.

 

2. The Postmaster,

Pallavaram Post office,

Chennai – 43.                                            ..Opposite parties   

 

 

For the Complainants                  :   M/s. R.Kannan & another    

For the opposite parties               :   M/s. A. Ashok Kumar.

 

Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  The  complaint is filed seeking direction against the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.75,924/- being the balance in the savings of account of G.Hemavathy together with interest and also to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- for negligence and deficiency in service and cost of the complaint to the complainant.  

ORDER

 

THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM PRESIDENT

1.The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:-  

 

 The complainants submit that the complaint mentioned deceased Hemavathy had deposited  a sum of Rs.50,000/- each in the  six  monthly income savings account at Pallavaram Post Office.  Since she died on 15.12.2008 the complainant as legal heirs of the  said deceased Hemavathy  have obtained succession certificate and have claimed the said deposit amount from the opposite parties.  Whereas the 2nd  opposite party paid only Rs.2,24,076/- out of Rs.3,00,000/- and balance of Rs.75,924/- was unpaid which is not proper on the part of the opposite parties.   Accordingly the complainants have issued a legal notice to the opposite parties on 6.2.2013 demanding balance of deposit and interest payments.  But the opposite party-1 issued a reply on 12.2.2013 without any substance.    There was no further response or payment from respondents.   The act of the opposite parties amounts  to deficiency in service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.      As such the complainant has sought for claiming to pay a sum of Rs.75,924/- being the balance in the savings of account of G.Hemavathy together with interest and also to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- for negligence and deficiency in service and cost of the complaint to the complainant.      

Written Version of opposite parties are  in briefly as follows:

2.     The opposite parties denies all the averments and allegation contained in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein.    The opposite parties submit that  since the said deposit were made in Pallavaram Post Office the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable before this forum has no territorial jurisdiction  to entertain the complaint.   As per terms and conditions of  the said   monthly income scheme (MIS) the depositor not entitled to make deposit more than 3 lakhs whereas contrary to the said rules, the depositor by falsely declaring no such excess deposits were made under the said scheme,  the said depositor had already  opened MIS account for a sum of  Rs.5,02,000/- exceeding the prescribed limit of Rs.3,00,000/- for single account at Pammal Sub Post Office and that there is excess investment of Rs.2,02,000/- at Pammal S.O. which will not earn bonus/ interest due for MIS.   Despite  above, the depositor had suppressed the above fact  the said 6 more MIS accounts at Pallavaram which is highly irregular, as such the entire investment at Pallavaram will not earn bonus / interest as such the excess interest Rs.333/- paid for 38 months for the said 6 deposits accounts totaling a sum of Rs.75,924/- was deducted in the deposit amount as such the balance amount of Rs.2,24,076/- was paid to the complainants towards the claim made by them, as such there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  

3.   Complainant has filed his Proof affidavit and Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 were marked on the side of the complainant.   Proof affidavit of  Opposite parties filed and no document was marked on the side of the  opposite parties.   

4.      The points that arise for consideration are as follows:-

1.   Whether the opposite parties has committed  deficiency of

 service  as alleged in the complaint?

 

2.   Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief sought for in

the complaint? If so to what extent ?

 

5.  POINTS  1 and 2 :

             Perused the complaint filed by the complainant, the written version filed by the opposite parties, proof affidavits filed by both the parties  and the documents Ex.A1 to A4 filed on the side of complainant    and considered the arguments of the both sides.

6.     There is no dispute that the complaint mentioned deceased Hemavathy had deposited  a sum of Rs.50,000/- each in the  6 (six) monthly income savings account at Pallavaram Post Office.  Since she died on 15.12.2008 the complainant as legal heirs of the  said deceased Hemavathi  have obtained succession certificate and have claimed the said deposit amount from the opposite parties.  Whereas the 2nd  opposite party paid only Rs.2,24,076/- out of Rs.3,00,000/- and balance of Rs.75,924/- was unpaid which is not proper on the part of the opposite parties which amounts to deficiency of service and the complainant claims the said amount with interest and compensation in the complaint.

7.     Whereas the opposite parties has resisted the complaint by saying that since the said deposit were made in Pallavaram Post Office the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable before this forum on the point  of territorial jurisdiction and also resisted that as per terms and conditions of  the said   monthly income scheme (MIS) the depositor not entitled to make deposit more than 3 lakhs whereas contrary to the said rules, the depositor by falsely declaring no such excess deposits were made under the said scheme,  the said depositor had already  opened MIS account for a sum of  Rs.5,02,000/- exceeding the prescribed limit of Rs.3,00,000/- for single account at Pammal Sub Post Office and that there is excess investment of Rs.2,02,000/- at Pammal S.O. which will not earn bonus / interest due for MIS.   Despite above, the depositor had suppressed the above fact the said 6 more MIS accounts at Pallavaram which is highly irregular, as such the entire investment at Pallavaram will not earn bonus / interest as such the excess interest Rs.333/- paid for 38 months for the said 6 deposits accounts totaling a sum of Rs.75,924/- was deducted in the deposit amount as such the balance amount of Rs.2,24,076/- was paid to the complainants towards the claim made by them, as such there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

8.     With regard to the above said 1^st contention raised by the opposite parties that the complaint is not maintainable before this forum, on the point of territorial jurisdiction since the said transaction was made at Pallavaram which is under the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Froum of Chengelpattu,  however as far as this complaint is concerned for the grievance made in the complaint, the opposite parties have included the 1^st opposite party which is the Head Office of the 2^nd opposite party,  which appears to be relevant, as such since the 1st opposite party comes under the jurisdiction of this forum, this complaint as it stands now is maintainable.  Therefore this contention raised by the opposite parties is to be rejected as not valid. 

9.     The next objection raised by the opposite parties against the   grievance mentioned in the complaint is that on the basis of the chapter 5 “Monthly Income Account Scheme Salient Features of the Scheme”  The extract of the same is filed by the opposite parties in which as per clause 158 it has been mentioned are as follows:

“Deposits held by an individual in his / her single account together his/her share in joint account should not exceed the prescribed limit of Rs.3,00,000/- with effect 1-2-2000”

 

It is not disputed by the complainant that the said complaint mentioned accounts were opened after 1.2.2000 i.e on 24.08.2005 as mentioned in Ex.A1 the relevant copy of the pass books.   Further as contended by the opposite parties on the date of opening of the said 6 accounts the depositor / deceased Hemavathy was already opened MIS accounts for Rs.5,02,000/- in Pammal Post Office.   It is not specifically denied by the complainants,   but on the contrary the copy of the succession certificate Ex.A2  filed by the complainants itself reveals that there were 18 deposits  were made  and maintained by the deceased Hemavathi among them the six deposits each for Rs.50,000/- were deposited in Pallavaram Post Office remaining 12 deposits accounts were deposited in Pammal Post Office for the total amount of Rs.8,04,000/-.  Therefore as contended by the opposite parties on the date of opening of the complaint mentioned 6 MIS accounts the depositor / deceased Hemavathy was already made and maintained MIS accounts in the Pammal Post Office for the total amount of Rs.5,04,000/- Without disclosing the same, with false declaration in the application for opening the said deposits, the depositor had deposited the said amount under the said scheme which is irregular, as such the amount will not fetch interest, as per the said scheme is acceptable.   Therefore the said complaint mentioned deposits are against the terms and conditions of the said scheme, they were excess amount of deposits as such, for the said amount the depositor was not entitled for bonus / interest.  The interest which were already received for the 38 months are liable to be deducted to the extent of Rs.75,924/- is also acceptable as per the said provisions.   Accordingly the opposite parties contention that the said amount towards the interest paid for the period of 38 months was deducted according to the rules is acceptable and the balance amount of deposit was paid to the complainant.  It is further pertinent to mention that in this regard the interest said to have been already paid for 38 months for the said deposit amount i.e  Rs.75,924, have not been specifically denied by the opposite parties.

10.    However as per the same terms and conditions mentioned by the opposite parties particularly under clause 167 (6)  reads as follows:

     (6) “Payment of POSB interest on excess investment  beyond the prescribed limit under Post Office Monthly Income Scheme :-  If a depositor has made an excess investment beyond the prescribed limit under the Post Office Monthly Income Account Scheme, the excess deposit beyond the prescribed limit will be refunded by the PM/SPM with the POSB rate of interest to the depositor.  The interest already paid on the excess amount will be recovered / adjusted from their amount refunded.  The commission paid to the agent on the excess investment will also be recovered from the agent.”

11.    According to the above provision the opposite parties would have  refunded the excess amount of deposit with interest with the POSB rate of interest to the depositor.  But in this case the opposite parties have not returned the said excess amount to the complainant with the Post Office savings rate of interest, but they only refunded the deposit amount after deducting  the interest paid towards the said deposits for the 38 months.  Therefore we are of the considered view to that extent,  the opposite parties have committed deficiency of service in returning the said deposit amount to the complainants.  If the POSB rate of interest (the present prevailing POSB rate of interest of 4.5% per annum)  is calculated for the said deposit amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the date of deposit i.e 24.08.2005 to till the date of return of the said amount  as on 17.11.2011 (calculated and mentioned in Ex.A1), it comes to Rs.43,875/-.   Therefore as per the above provision the opposite parties would have calculated interest for the excess amount of the deposit and paid to the complainants.  But they failed to do so.  Therefore, the opposite parties are liable to pay a sum of Rs.43,875/- towards the said deposit amounts to the complainant as per the above provision i.e terms and conditions of the MIS accounts scheme.  Therefore we are of the considered view that on the facts and circumstances of the case  that the opposite parties are liable to pay a sum of Rs.43,875/- with interest at the rate of 4.5% per annum from the date of demand by legal notice  dated i.e 6.2.2013 to till the date of payment  and also to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- as cost to the complainant.  We are not inclined to grant compensation to the complainant as claimed against the opposite parties in this complaint considering the facts and circumstances of the case.    Accordingly the points 1 and 2 are answered.

        In the result this complaint is partly allowed, the opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.43,875/- (Rupees Forty three thousand eight hundred and seventy five only) with interest at the rate of 4.5% per annum from 06.02.2013 to till the date of payment and also to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand only) as cost to the complainants within six weeks from the date of this order.

Dictated to the Assistant transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this the  2^nd    day  of  May   2016.

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s side documents:

Ex.A1-         -       - Copy of MIS A/c of late G.Hemavathy.

Ex.A2-         -       - Copy of succession certificate in opposite party.

Ex.A3- 6.2.2013    - Copy of legal notice to the opposite parties.

Ex.A4- 12.2.2013  - Copy of reply notice by 1^st opposite party.

  

 

Opposite parties’ Exhibits:-   .. Nil ..

 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.