Delhi

East Delhi

CC/1018/2012

BHAVESH KUMAR DADU - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE POST MASTER - Opp.Party(s)

25 Sep 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO.  1018/12

 

Shri Bhavesh Kumar Dadu

S/o Late Tara Chand Dadu

R/o H. No. 22, Pocket-5

Sector-2, Rohini, Delhi – 110 085                                                       ….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

1. The Post Master General

General Post Office

Parliament Street

New Delhi – 110 001

 

2. Post Master (Senior)

Krishna Nagar, Head Post Office

Delhi – 110 051

 

3. Post Master APM-SBHO

Krishna Nagar, Head Post Office

Delhi – 110 051                                                                              …Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 12.12.2012

Judgment Reserved on: 25.09.2017

Judgment Passed on: 27.09.2017

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

 

Order By : Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

 

JUDGEMENT

            This complaint has been filed by Shri Bhavesh Kumar Dadu against Post Master General, General Post Office, Parliament Street (OP-1), Senior Post Master, Krishna Nagar Post Office (OP-2) and Post Master APM-SBHO, Krishna Nagar Post Office (OP-3), under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.         The facts in brief are that Shri Tara Chand Dadu S/o Shri Keshav Dayal Dadu, father of the complainant, at his age of 80 years had invested/deposited the amount through Smt. Savitri Sharma, an authorized agent  of respondent no. 1 to 3, under the monthly saving scheme, as per details:-

MIS No.	Dated	Amount
32185	20.11.2004	Rs. 2,00,000/-
32577	28.12.2004	Rs. 1,80,000/-
32767	12.01.2005	Rs. 1,00,000/-

 

            Shri Tara Chand Dadu, father of the complainant being of 80 years was not in a position to collect the monthly interest from respondent no. 2.  He opened a joint saving account bearing no. 613470 in the names of Tara Chand Dadu and Savitri Devi with Auto Shifting Facility to get the MIS’s interest, deposited in the saving account month by month.  Shri Tara Chand Dadu, the holder of aforesaid MIS, expired on 25.03.2010, which was informed by the complainant, being LR to respondent no. 2.  The complainant also requested respondent no. 2 to pay the maturity amount with accrued interest.  He has further stated that complainant had to visit respondent no. 2 several times with his request to pay the maturity amount on which respondent no. 2 issued the following letters:-

Ref. No.	Dated	Vide MIS Account no.
KN/DSB-32577/10-11	19.01.2011	-
KN/DSB-230/10-11	05.02.2011	32185
KN/DSB-229/10-11	05.02.2011	32577

 

            It has been stated that the amount shown in the letter was shocking and humiliating.  Various requests were made to respondent no. 2 to rectify the amount payable, which was not acted so far.

            The complainant gave a legal notice of dated 12.03.2012 to the respondents in respect of making the payment of which respondent sent a reply of dated 08.05.2012.  Thus, it has been stated that respondent no. 1 to 3 were liable to pay the actual accrued maturity value/amount to the complainant under the MIS Scheme.  All the respondents were negligent and have caused deficiency in their service. 

            Hence, the complainant have prayed for direction to OP to pay        Rs. 6,67,200/-, the actual accrued maturity value alongwith bonus @ 5%; Rs. 1,25,111/- as loss of earning and future compound interest @ 10.5% p.a. from 31.10.2012; Rs. 70,000/- compensation on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs. 30,000/- as cost of litigation.     

3.         In the WS, filed on behalf of all the respondents, they have stated that as per MIS Account Rules 1987, there was limit of Rs. 3,00,000/- in case of single account and Rs. 6,00,000/- in case of joint account.  The complainant deposited an amount of Rs. 4,80,000/-.  While examining the deceased claim, it has come to the knowledge of OPs that over payment in respect of accounts were made to the holder  Shri Tara Chand Dadu, who had opened the said accounts beyond the prescribed limit.  The father of the complainant invested an amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- in excess, on which excess interest @ 8% amounting to Rs. 67,200/- was paid.  The actual interest @ 3.5% amounting to Rs. 29,400/- was payable.  Thus, an amount of Rs. 37,800/- was recoverable.  This excess amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- was under account no. 32577. 

            They have further stated that sanction of MIS account 32577 issued vide memo no. KN/DSB-229/10-11 dated 05.02.2011 was issued for       Rs. 1,31,400/- instead of Rs.1,42,200/- due to clerical mistake.  Recovery of Rs. 1,800/- was made from Smt. Savitri Sharma (agent).  The factual position was intimated to Shri Bhavesh Kumar Dadu (complainant) through letter no. KN/DSB-32577/10-11 dated 19.01.2011.  The complainant have failed to show any loss or injury suffered by him.  The complainant was guilty of his own wrongs.

            It has also been stated that late Shri Tara Chand Dadu concealed the true facts from OP that he had deposited the excess amount in the post office in his MIS account, which was  Rs.1,80,000/-.  The said amount was beyond the rules on which an amount of Rs. 67,200/- was paid towards interest.  Simultaneously, interest of Rs.1,800/- was also paid to the commission agent, which was beyond the prescribed limit.  The complainant was only entitled to receive the maturity amount with interest upto Rs. 3,00,000/-.  Other facts have been denied.          

4.         The complainant has filed rejoinder to the WS of OPs, wherein he has controverted the pleas taken in the WS and reasserted his pleas.

5.         In support of its complaint, complainant have examined himself.  He has deposed on affidavit and have narrated the facts stated in the complaint.  He has also got exhibited documents such as copies of MIS (Ex.CW-1/C1), copy of saving passbook (Ex.CW-1/C2), copy of letters dated 19.01.2011 & 05.02.2011, issued by respondent no. 2 (Ex.CW-1/C3), legal demand notice dated 12.03.2012 (Ex.CW-1/C4), reply of legal notice dated 08.05.2012 (Ex.CW-1/C5) and statement of MIS as calculated by the complainant (Ex.CW-1/C6). 

            In defence, OP have examined Shri U.S. Gaur, Senior Post Master, Krishna Nagar Post Office, who have deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts which have been stated in the WS.  He has also got exhibited documents such as copy of letter No. KN/DSB-32577/10-11 dated 07.01.2011 (Ex.RW-1/A), letter No. KN/DSB-32577/10-11 dated 19.01.2011 (Ex.RW-1/B), letter No. KN/DSB-229/10-11 dated 05.02.2011 (Ex.RW-1/C) and photocopy of ruling of Post Office (Ex.RW-1/D).

6.     We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record.  It has been argued on behalf of complainant that the complainant was entitled for the interest on the excess amount accepted by Krishna Nagar Post Office.  She has relied upon a judgement of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Union of India and Ors. Vs. Dr. Satinder Nath Verma (Revision Petition no. 2033 of 2004 decided on 03.11.2004), where it was held that the department was bound to make payment of the matured amount of Kisan Vikas Patra and interest @ 9% p.a, purchased in violation of rules. 

            On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for Department of Post have argued that the department was not bound to pay interest on the excess amount deposited and accepted in violation of rules as it did not amount to any deficiency on the part of department.

            To appreciate the arguments of Ld. Counsel for the parties, a look has to be made to the Monthly Income Account Rules 1987 (referred as Rules) of Post Office.  The relevant rules are hereunder extracted,:-

Rule 4: Opening of account

            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 lakh in single account and rupees six lakh in joint account. 

Rule 5:  Deposits and Withdrawals:

1. There shall be only one deposit in the account in multiple of one thousand rupees not exceeding rupees three lakh in case of single account and rupees six lakh in case of joint account.
2. Except as provided in rule 10, no withdrawal shall be permitted under these rules before the expiry of a period of six years from the date of opening of an account.

Rule 8 : Interest of deposit:

1. The deposit made under these rules shall bear interest @ 8% per annum in respect of deposits made on or after the 1^st day of March, 2003.
2. The interest shall be payable monthly to the depositor on completion of a month from the date of deposit.
3. ……………….
4. ……………….
5. …………….....
6. A post office shall, as soon as it comes to its notice that a deposit made under Rule 4 by a depositor exceeds the prescribed ceilings specified therein, shall request the depositor to withdraw the excess deposit immediately.
7. The excess amount referred to in sub-rule (6) shall carry an interest at the rate applicable from time to time to the Post Office Savings Account and shall be payable to such depositor on such amount.
8. The interest referred to in sub-rule (7) shall be admissible from the date of deposit of the excess amount till the end of the month preceding the month in which the depositor has been requested to withdraw such excess amount in the account.

 

            The combined reading of Rule 4, 5 and Rule 8 show that a ceiling has been put in respect of deposits made under MIS Scheme.  The deposits as per this ceiling, are not to exceed Rs. 3,00,000/- in case of single account and Rs. 6,00,000/- in case of joint account, meaning thereby that in any single deposit account, the amount cannot exceed more than Rs. 3,00,000/- and in the joint account, the maximum amount                   Rs. 6,00,000/-.  Further, a duty has been cast upon the post office to request the depositor to withdraw the excess deposit immediately, when it comes to its notice that a deposit made by a depositor exceeds the prescribed ceiling.  Such excess amount shall carry interest at the rate applicable to the Post Office Saving Account, which shall be admissible from the date of deposit of the excess amount till the end of the month, preceding the month in which the depositor has been requested to withdraw such excess amount.

            In the light of these rules, it has to be seen as to whether the excess amount deposited by the father of the complainant was to carry 8% interest applicable on deposits under MIS or it was to carry simple interest under Post Office Saving Account.  For this, a look has to be made to the testimony of Shri Bhavesh Kumar Dadu, complainant, as well as             Shri U.S. Gaur, Senior Post Master, Krishna Nagar. 

            From the testimony of Shri Bhavesh Kumar Dadu, complainant, who has got exhibited copies of MIS (Ex.CW1/C1), it shows that an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was deposited on 20.11.2004 under MIS no. 32185,    Rs.1,80,000/- on 28.12.2004 under MIS no. 32577 and Rs.1,00,000/- on 12.01.2005 under MIS no. 32767.  , Copy of the Pass Book (Ex. CW1/C2) shows that interest was paid.

            Further, letters Ex.CW1/C3, sent by the Department of Post, show that complainant was informed through letter of Senior Post Master, Krishna Nagar of dated 19.01.2011, that excess amount of Rs. 1,80,000/-, deposited with Post Office Krishna Nagar was beyond the rules.  The complainant have further been informed through the letter of dated 05.02.2011 that the amount payable with interest against MIS no. 32185, 32577 and 32767 are Rs. 2,00,000/-, Rs. 1,31,400/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- respectively. 

            From the testimony of Shri U.S. Gaur, Senior Post Master, Krishna Nagar, he has also got exhibited documents such as letters dated 07.01.2011, written by Senior Post Master to APM-SBHO, Krishna Nagar, Head Post Office, with regards to the interest paid at MIS account            no. 32577, 32185 and 32767 for Rs. 1,80,000/-, 2,00,000/- and 1,00,000/- in the name of Late Shri Tara Chand Dadu.  Letter Ex. RW1/B of dated 19.01.2011 informing the complainant of the excess amount deposited by father of the complainant and the interest paid thereon.

            His testimony also shows that father of the complainant                Shri Tara Chand Dadu deposited excess amount of Rs. 1,80,000/-, on which interest of Rs. 67,200/- was paid.  Interest of Rs. 1,800/- was also paid to Smt. Savitri Sharma, the commission agent, which was recovered.  His testimony also shows that department was to recover an amount of   Rs. 37,800/-, which was paid in excess.  Thus, it was stated in his testimony that an amount of Rs. 1,42,200/- was payable on excess amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- with 3.5% interest, instead of Rs. 1,31,200/- for which sanction was issued, which was subject to rectification. 

            Thus, from the testimony of complainant Shri Bhavesh Kumar Dadu and Shri U.S. Gaur, Senior Post Master, Krishna Nagar, it comes out that an amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- was deposited in excess to the limit of           Rs. 3,00,000/- which was against the rules.  This excess amount of         Rs. 1,80,000/- was to carry 3.5% interest of Post Office Saving Account making a total of Rs. 1,42,000/-.

            The complainant was informed through the letter of dated 19.01.2011, when it came to the knowledge of the department for having deposited the excess amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- by deceased                   Shri Tara Chand Dadu, father of the complainant on which excess interest was paid. 

            Under the rules, the department has to give notice to the depositor to withdraw the excess amount when it comes to its notice that excess amount has been deposited.  The excess amount deposited shall carry the interest at the rate applicable to the Post Office Saving Account, which shall be admissible from the date of deposit of the excess amount till the end of the month, preceding the month in which the depositor has been requested to withdraw.

            The complainant have been informed in respect of the excess amount deposited by deceased Tara Chand Dadu in his account beyond the prescribed limit of Rs. 3,00,000/- on 19.01.2011, when it has come to the knowledge of the department.  The excess amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- was to carry Post Office Saving Account interest from the date of deposit till the end of the month preceding the month in which the depositor was requested to withdraw i.e. December 2010. 

            Though, it is crystal clear that under the Rules, the excess amount has to carry interest at the rate Post Office Saving Account, which has been paid by the Department of Post, it has to be seen as to how far the judgement relied upon by Ld. Counsel for complainant in Union of India and Ors. (Supra), come to his rescue. 

            Counsel for complainant have referred this judgement, which was passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the year 2004.  The law on the subject have travelled from 2004 to 2015, where National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Revision Petition no. 1573 of 2013 in Department of Post & Ors. Vs. Hanuman Prasad, decided on 07.08.2015, relying upon the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arulmighu Dhandayudhapaniswamy vs. The Director General of Post Offices, Civil Appeal no. 4995 of 2006, held that complainant, who opened his first account in 1990 in NSS Scheme and second account in 1991, which was not permissible, Department of Post rightly refused to pay interest in the second account as per NSS Rules and rightly paid interest at the rate Saving Bank Account. 

            In this case, reliance was also placed on the judgement of National Commission in K.M. Singh vs. Senior Post Master, Ramesh Nagar, I(2003)/CPJ167(NC), where it was laid down that if account has been opened in violation of rules, depositor was not entitled to interest.  Here, reference was made to the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arulmighu Dhandayudhapaniswamy (Supra), where it was laid down that amount deposited in violation of the rule, the Department Of Post was justified in declining to pay interest for the deposited amount since the same was not permissible. 

            It further held that there was no deficiency in service on the part of department. 

            Thus, the law is well settled that excess amount deposited in violation of department rule will not carry interest payable under the said scheme, but will carry interest of Post Office Saving Account.  The judgement relied upon by Ld. Counsel for the complainant does not come to his  rescue. 

            When the rules do not permit excess amount to be deposited beyond the ceiling prescribed and if deposited, the same will carry Post Office Saving Bank Account interest and the law is well settled that the excess amount was to carry Post Office Saving Account Interest and not as per the scheme under which the deposit was made and it does not amount to deficiency in service, the excess interest paid by Department of Post on the excess amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- @ 8% as per MIS Scheme was not justified.  This excess amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- was to carry Post Office Saving Account Interest @ 3.5% and there was no deficiency on the part of Department of Post.

            In view of the above, we are of the opinion that no case of deficiency in service on the part of Department of Post (OPs) have been made out.  When there has been no deficiency on the part of Department of Post, the question of compensation, loss of earning and future interest does not arise. 

            Before parting this, it would not be out of place to mention that this complaint depicts the story of MIS Scheme of Postal Department.  This case shows that the post office have got the excess amount deposited beyond the prescribed limit in the year 2004 which came to the notice of the department in the year 2011, when the complainant Shri Bhavesh Kumar Dadu, nominee of Shri Tara Chand Dadu, who expired on 25.03.2010, claimed the said amount.  Shri Tara Chand Dadu, the father of the complainant, since opening of account in the year 2004 was paid interest on the excess amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- and was informed through letter  no. KN/DSB-32577/10-11 dated 19.01.2011 that interest on the excess amount was not payable under the MIS Scheme.  Even on the excess amount deposited, agent Smt. Savitri Sharma was paid commission of     Rs. 1,800/- which was later on recovered from her.  This story of excess amount deposited beyond the prescribed ceiling and interest paid thereon under MIS Scheme of post offices have been highlighted in the letter of Senior Post Master of Krishna Nagar Head Office of dated 07.01.2011, sent to APM-SBHO, Krishna Nagar Head Office, Delhi, where reference has been made to the letter of D.G. Posts letter no. 110-19/2001-SB dated 05.04.02 stating that they have observed that a large number of cases, the depositors have made excess investment beyond the prescribed limit under Post Office Monthly Income Account Scheme.  In such cases, the excess deposit beyond the prescribed limit was refunded without interest to the depositor.  The interest paid if any on the excess irregular deposits was deducted.  The commission paid to the agent on the excess investment was also recovered from the agent (RW1/A).

            From the complaint as well as the instructions issued by DG Post to which the reference has been made by Senior Post Master, Krishna Nagar, it seems that the officials and the agents do not have the knowledge of the various schemes of post offices and in particular MIS Scheme,  Though, under the rules, the excess amount have to carry the interest of Post Office Saving Account, but the depositor, who have bonafidely deposited the excess amount have to suffer due to lack of knowledge of the officials of Postal Department as well as the agents though whom, the said deposits are made. 

            The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arulmighu Dhandayudhapaniswamy (Supra), made various suggestions in respect of excess amount being accepted by the postal authorities.  To ensure that the said suggestions are adhered to by the department, the same are repeated herein again by extracting the relevant portion of the judgement hereunder:-

\Para 10

1. Whether it is metropolitan or rural area, persons dealing with public money or those who are in-charge of accepting deposits to be conversant with all the details relating to types of deposits, period, rate of interest, eligibility criteria etc. for availing benefits under different schemes.
2. It is desirable to exhibit all these details in vernacular language in a conspicuous place to facilitate the persons who intend to invest/deposit money.
3. That if the Central Govt. issues any notification/instructions regarding change in the interest rate or any other aspect with regard to deposits, the decision taken shall  be immediately passed on to all the authorities concerned by using latest technology methods. i.e. by fax, e-mail or any other form of communication so that they are kept updated of the latest developments.
4. If there is any change in different types of schemes, it must be brought to the notice of the sub-ordinate staff of the post offices dealing with deposits in order to ensure that correct procedures are followed and correct information is given to the public. 

 

            Though, the Hon’ble Supreme Court have made above suggestions, we may further add to it:-

1. The officials accepting the deposits under various schemes of postal department must be given proper training before their posting.
2. The commission agents, working for the postal authorities, getting the deposits made under various schemes must also be given short term training on their appointment.
3. The Department of Post must conduct refresher courses for the officials as well as commission agents.
4. The postal authorities must conduct periodic inspections annually to detect the excess amount deposited beyond the prescribed limit.
5. Though, under the rules, the complainant have to be informed, this rule of informing the complainant for withdrawal of excess amount deposited must be strictly followed. 
6. The officials performing the duty of accepting the deposits under various schemes must be given incentive. 

            In order to protect the interest of the depositors under the various schemes of postal authorities and to encourage the depositors to deposit the amount, it is directed that postal authorities must ensure that the suggestions made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arulmighu Dhandayudhapaniswamy (Supra) as well as the suggestions made by this Forum are strictly complied with.

            A copy of the order be sent to Secretary – Posts with the direction to issue necessary orders to all the Chief Post Master General for compliance of the above suggestions.  

            In view of the above observations, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to cost.

             Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

            File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                                             (SUKHDEV SINGH)

     Member                                                                                   President