Bangalore – 75

2.  A.V. Prasanna,

     D/o. Late V.Anandan                                      :         Complainants

     Prakash Estate,

     Thinapuram,

     P.O. Rippen,

     Meppadi, Wynad.

3.  A.V. Saraswathi,

     D/o. Late V.Anandan

     Saraswathi Nilayam,

     P.O. Parapram, Via. Pinarayi,

     Thalassery.

(All rep. by Adv. John Joseph)

1.  The Post Master,

     Head Post Office,

     Thalassery.

2.  Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary,

     Department of Posts,

     New Delhi.

3.  V.A. Narayanan,                                              :         Opposite Parties

     S/o.  Anandan,

     Hema-64,

     Narayana Guru Co-operative Housing Society,

     P.L. Lokhande Marge, Chembur,

     Mumbai – 400 089

O R D E R

Smt. K.P. Preethakumari, Member

          This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection

 Act for an order directing the opposite party No.1 to 2 to pay ` 24,718 with 9% interest from the date of filing with cost to each complainants and 3^rd opposite party.

          The case of the complainant is that they and 3^rd opposite party are the legal heirs of deceased V. Anandan.  Mr.Anandan had deposited `90,000 on 14.05.1997 for a period of 5 years by way of fixed deposit.  After the death of Sri.Anandan his son V.N. Narayanan, 3<sup>rd</sup> opposite party filed a suit for partition before Munsiff Court by impleading 1<sup>st</sup> opposite party as 4<sup>th</sup> defendant and Final decree passed for partitioning the entire amounts deposited by deceased V.Anandan before various institution including `90,000 before 1^st opposite party and passed final decree for dividing into 4 equal shares and allotting one each such share to complainants and 3^rd opposite party.  But 1^st opposite party has not disbursed the amount due to complainants and 3^rd opposite party as per the stipulations in the final decree.  So the complainant was constrained to issue a registered lawyer notice dated 23.10.09 calling upon 1^st opposite party to disburse ¼ th share due to her.  After this the 2^nd complainant filed an I.A.299/10 to give a direction against 1^st opposite party to deposit `90,000, but even after direction of the complainant, 1<sup>st</sup> opposite party has not deposited the amount.  After coercive steps 1<sup>st</sup> opposite party has deposited `1,56,368 with covering letter.  As per the covering letter, after the maturity period 1^st opposite party has not re-deposited the amount nor issued any notice regarding the maturity of deposits and only `10,426 is credited by way of maturity interest.  The F.D. was for five years with effect from 14.05.1997.  According to the complainants a sum of `1,66,755 ought to have been accrued in the said account by way of interest in case of 1^st opposite party had properly redeposited the amount.  In case after maturity period if the said amount was disbursed to the legal heirs of the deceased depositor the same would have been fetched more than 7.5% interest by way of F.D interest from nationalized bank.  So due to deficient service complainants and 3^rd opposite party have suffered financial loss of more than `96,389 as on 29.10.10.  The 1<sup>st</sup> opposite party ought to have either redeposited the original FD amount along with interest accrued after maturity period or disbursed the amount to the nominee concerned.  After the maturity period for disbursement on any legal heirs or at least sent notice to the legal heirs stating that unless the amount is withdrawn by producing proper documents, the same shall not fetch any interest after the maturity period.  So the complainants issued a legal notice dated 31.03.2011 calling upon the 1<sup>st</sup> opposite party to disburse the amount of `96,389 legally due to the complaiants and 3^rd opposite party herein with cost.  Eventhough they have received notice, no reply is sent.  Hence the complaint.

          In pursuance to the notice issued by the Forum 1^st and 2^nd opposite party appeared and filed their version admitting that the deceased V.Anandan had 5 year Time Deposite account opened on 14.05.1997 for `90,000 and the nomination was the 3<sup>rd</sup> opposite party, and the complainants.  Apart from the T.D. account a monthly income scheme accounts were also opened by the above said Anandan for `48,000, `42,000, `24,000 and `30,000 on 30.03.1996, 05.05.97, 07.10.96 and 01.08.98 respectively for the deposit of `48,000 nomination was registered in the name of A.V. Vasantha 1^st complainant and for the other three monthly income scheme accounts nomination was registered in the name of Sri. A.V. Saraswathi the third complainant.  The depositor died on 19.06,99 and all these four accounts were closed in the year 2000 on the basis of the claim submitted by complainants No.1 and 3 as nominees.  But T.D. account No.75525 under complaint was not closed.  During 2002 Sri. V.A. Narayanan 3^rd opposite party filed a suit for partition before the Munsiff Court, Thalassery and ordered for partition of entire amount deposited by deceased Anandan  in various deposit schemes including TD account for `90,000.  Final decree was also posted on 28.02.09 for partitioning the deposit amount with interest into 4 equal shares. But no claim was preferred by the complainants and 3<sup>rd</sup> opposite party who were nominees of TD A/c No.75525 and there was no specific direction on the decree to deposit the amount before the court.  The opposite parties waited for the claim application from the nominees.  Thereafter the 1<sup>st</sup> complainant filed IA 349/10 in O.S.190/02 for giving directions to the post master to deposit the principle with interest accrued in the TD account 75525 before the Court. So the total amount of `1,59,399 ie `90,000 being principal and `58,940 being the interest for 5 year at the rate of `11,788 for each year and `10,426 being the post maturity interest  for 2 years from 14.05.02 at 3.5% was deposited as per the order of the court on 30.10.2010 as per chalan no.75 dated 29.10.10.

          The post office time deposit accounts are governed by post office time deposit rules and Government Savings Banks Act 1873.  As per rule 7 of post office time deposit rule for a 5 year Time deposit made on or after 02.09.1993 but before 01.01.99 interest will be payable at the rate of 12.5% per annum calculated at quarterly compounding basis and such interest shall be payable to the depositor at the end of each year in the period of deposition.  As per rule 9 of TDR 1981 where repayment of the deposit under rule 7 has become due has not been made, post maturity interest shall be allowed on the amount due for a maximum period of two years from the date of maturity to the date of repayment of the deposit and such interest shall be at simple interest rate applicable from time to time to Savings Bank accounts of the type of single or joint account. The rate of interest are fixed by the ministry of finance and changes are notified from time to time through gazette notification and the postal department has no authority to fix or change the rate of interest.  So the interest worked out for each year is `11,788 for `90,000.  As per the gazette notification S.O.191(E) dated 01.03.01 reduced the interest rate of SB Scheme w.e.f. 01.03.2001 is 3.5%.  There is no provision in the post office time deposit Rules 1981 to automatically redeposit the maturity value into TD account again without the depositor tendering the application for withdrawal of the original deposit in the prescribed form.  There is no provision in the rules to issue notice to the depositor on maturity of the account or to issue notices to the nominees after the death of depositor to close the account.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its order dated 13.07.2011 in appeal No.4995/06 regarding a case of payment of interest in respect of some irregularly opened TD accounts has held that when payment of interest is prohibited in terms of rule 17 failure to pay interest cannot be construed as a case of deficiency in service in terms of se-2(1)(g)d C.P. Act, so there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

Upon the above contentions the following issues have been raised for consideration.

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

2.         Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief as prayed?

3.         Relief and cost.

The evidence in the above case consists of the oral testimony of PW1, DW1 and Ext.A1 to A12.

          The complainants contended that the amount of `90,000 is the time deposite account having No. 75525 in the name of deceased V. Anandan was neither disbursed to the legal heirs even after a decree from a competent count of law.  But after taking coercive steps 1<sup>st</sup> opposite party deposited `1,59,368, but as per the covering letter opposite party has calculated only a nominal interest and not either redeposited nor informed the complainants against maturity and hence they are entitled to get `24,718 each to complainants and 3<sup>rd</sup> opposite party with 9% interest.  In order to prove their case they have produced document such as certified copy of the decree in O.S.196/02, photocopy of the Final judgment in I.A.2527/06 in O.S.196/02, copy of lawyer notice, postal receipt, acknowledgment, copy of affidavit filed in I.A.2527/06, copy of counter statement, copy of affidavit filed in I.A. 2527/06, copy of lawyer notice dated 31.03.11, postal receipt, acknowledgment and answers furnished by 1<sup>st</sup> opposite party in the interrogatory application etc.  In order to disprove the case opposite party also examined DW1.  According to the complainants and 3<sup>rd</sup> opposite party their father had deposited 90,000 as TD for 5 years on 14.05.1997 and after maturity period, the opposite parties have neither informed the complainants about the deposit nor redeposited the amount.  So they have suffered a total loss of `96,389 by way of interest.  But the opposite party contended that the post office time deposit accounts are governed and regulated by post office time deposit rules, 1981 and as per rule 7 of TD Rules for a 5 year time deposit made on or after 02.09.1993 but before 01.01.99 interest will be payable at the rate of 12.5% per annum calculated at quarterly compounding basis such interest shall be paid to depositor at the end of each year in the period of deposit and the rate of interest prevailing at that time was 12.5%.  Accordingly for the five year interest will be `58,940/-.  Similarly as per Rule 9 of post office time deposit rules, repayment of the deposit under Rule 7 has become due has not been made post maturity interest shall be allowed on the amount due for a maximum period of two years from the date of maturity to the date of repayment of the deposit and such interest shall be at simple rate applicable from time to time to savings bank accounts of the type of single or joint.  At the relevant period the rate of interest applicable to savings bank account is 3.5% and the opposite parties have produced postal Directorate letter dated 21.12.1993 to prove this.  Accordingly the opposite parties have calculated `10,426 being the post maturity interest for 2 years and hence the opposite party has deposited `1,59,366 as the total amount including post maturity interest also.  The complainant has not produced any documents to show that they are entitled to get more than that.   Admittedly 3^rd opposite party has filed suit for partition including the disputed TD account during 2002 ie the relevant year in which the TD account be come matured.  So the complainant cannot say that they have no knowledge about the deposit.  More over they have not produced or not called for any documents to show that opposite party has duty bound to inform the complainant about date of maturity of TD account.  The complainant has no case that they have requested the opposite party to redeposit the same.  So the complainant has failed to establish their case by producing co-gent and convincing evidence.  So we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed and order passed accordingly.

          In the result the complaint dismissed.  No cost.

          Dated this the 24^th day of August, 2012.

                         Sd/-                        Sd/-                           Sd/-

                     President                 Member                     Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant

A1.   Certified copy of the judgment in Munsiff Court Thalassery,

        OS 196/02.

A2.   Copy of final judgment in OS196/02

A3.   Copy of Lawyer notice dated 23.10.09.

A4.   Postal receipt.  

A5.   Postal acknowledgment.

A6.   Copy of affidavit filed by complainant No.1 before Munsiff Court,   

        Thalassery in I.A.349/10.

A7.  Counter filed by 1^st OP in I.A.349/10.

A8.  Affidavit filed before Munsiff Court, Thalassery by council for the

       complainant.

A9.  True copy of Registered lawyer notice dated 31.03.2010.

A10. Postal receipt.

A11. Postal acknowledgment.

A12. Answers furnished by 1^st opposite party in the interrogatory

       Application

Exhibits for the opposite party

Nil

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1.  Complainant No.2

Witness examined for opposite party

DW1.  M.K. Sudheer

                                                                          /forwarded by order/

                                                                     SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT