THE DISTRICT CONSUMAR DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM No.419, Ist Floor,. H.N. Gowda Building, M.B.Road, Kolar-563101 consumer case(CC) No. CC/10/09
Mr.Arvindakshan
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
The Chief Post Master General, The Post Master, The Superintendent of Posts,
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
CC Filed on 11.01.2010 Disposed on 08.04.2010 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR. Dated: 08th day of April 2010 PRESENT: Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President. Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member. Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member. --- Consumer Complaint No. 09/2010 Between: Mr. Arvindakshan, Aged 68 years, R/at No. 75, Supriya Nivas, Cauvery Nagar Extension, BEML Nagar Post, Kolar Gold Fields. (By Advocate Sri. Sama Rangappa & others) V/S 1. The Post Master, BEML Nagar Post Office, BEML Nagar, Kolar Gold Fields. 2. The Superintendent of Posts, Department of Posts, Kolar. 3. The Chief Post Master General, Karnataka Circle, Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore 1. (By Advocate Sri. P.N. Krishna Reddy) .Complainant .Opposite Parties ORDERS This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for a direction against the opposite parties to pay Rs.6,00,000/- being the deposit amount with interest at 8% p.a. with bonus and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation towards deficiency in service with costs, etc., 2. The material facts of the case as may be gathered from the pleadings and submission of parties may be stated as follows: That the complainant who was an employee of BEML K.G.F on his retirement opened two Monthly Income Scheme accounts on 31.03.2003 vide account No. 472725 for Rs.50,000/- and vide account No. 472726 for Rs.2,00,000/- and subsequently opened on 30.04.2004 one more account of MIS vide account No. 473029 for Rs.3,50,000/- with OP.1. The wife of complainant Smt. A. Shantha was co-depositor in respect of all the above said three deposits. Sri. A. Sathish Kumar the elder son of complainant was nominee in respect of MIS Account No. 473029 and Sri. A. Pradeed Kumar the younger son of complainant was the nominee in respect of two other accounts. The complainant was issued pass book in respect of each account. The complainant was getting the interest every month from these accounts which was the main source of his livelihood. Smt. A. Shantha the wife of complainant died on 01.03.2006. The death was reported to OP.1 on 30.05.2006. The complainant made a request on the same day to OP.1 to take the respective nominees as co-depositor in respect of the above accounts. The nominees were also present. The then Post Master (OP.1) accepted the request of complainant and took the required applications from complainant and nominees with their specimen signatures to treat them as co-depositors. Again thereafter the complainant was receiving the interest on every month. The deposits were for a period of 6 years from the date of deposits. The complainant approached for repayment of the first two deposits in the end of March 2009 when these deposits were matured for payment. Then OP.1 raised objection for returning the deposits on the ground that the prescribed procedure was not followed on the death of Smt. A. Shantha and the nominees were wrongly included as co-depositors and thereby there was excess payment of interest. It is alleged that the demand of OP.1 for return of alleged excess payment of interest is unlawful and illegal. 3. The OPs admitted the deposits made by complainant and the reporting the death of complainants wife and treating the nominees as co-depositors with effect from 30.05.2006 as stated by complainant. However it is contended that as per Rule 168 (8) of Savings Account Rules, after the death of Smt. A. Shantha the joint account should have been converted into single account and the maximum limit for single account is Rs.3,00,000/- and the interest should cease on the remaining Rs.3,00,000/- from the date of death of co-depositor. Therefore it is contended that the interest paid to complainant is excessive and he was asked to return the excess payment of interest before paying the matured deposit amounts. It is contended by OP.1 that there was no provision to treat the nominees as co-depositors and the then Sub Post Master of OP.1 committed the mistake for which the Postal Department cannot be made to suffer. 4. The parties filed the required pleadings and affidavits. We heard the Learned Counsel for both parties. The Learned Counsel for OPs produced POSB Manual Vol I (Second Edition) for reference of Rules. 5. The following points arise for our consideration: Point No.1: Whether there is deficiency in service by OPs? Point No.2: If so, to which reliefs the complainant is entitled to? Point No.3: To what order? 6. After considering the records and the submissions of parties our findings on the above points are as follows: Point No.1: At the time of arguments the complainant admitted that on 30.05.2006 when he went to OP.1 for reporting the death of his wife, he made a request to enter the names of his sons as co-depositors in place of his wife and that for this purpose OP.1 had taken the signatures on required application forms. Here itself it may be noted that the pleading of the complainant in this regard narrates a different story. It is alleged in the complaint that after the death of complainants wife he approached OP.1 and produced death certificate and requested to pay the excess amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the accounts but OP.1 according to his whims and fancies mentioned the names of complainants sons as co-depositors in place of his wife. This portion of allegation is not pressed during the argument. The OPs were having the applications given by complainant and his sons to treat the sons as co-depositors. Therefore we have to decide the rights and liabilities of parties on the above stated true facts. The relevant Rule 168(8) is as follows: Status of joint MIS Account on the death of one of the depositors:- If one of the depositors of a MIS Account dies, the account will be treated as a single account in the name of the surviving depositor from the date of death of the said depositor when a report to this effect is received in the post office. The PM/SPM will ask the surviving depositor to withdraw the excess amount in excess of the limit prescribed for single depositor as this amount will not carry interest from the date of death of the joint depositor. The interest already paid on this excess amount will be recovered or adjusted. The account will be converted into a single account. It may be useful to note Rule 168 (7) which is as follows: Conversion of irregular MIS account from single to joint and vice-versa:- Since the Savings Account Rules are applicable to MIS Accounts, a single MIS Account can be converted into joint account and vice versa. This facility will not be available for conversion of MIS Account opened irregularly by exceeding the prescribed limits from single to joint or vice versa in order to compound the irregularity. In such cases the amount exceeding the prescribed limit will be refunded with interest at rate applicable to P.O. Savings Accounts. The commission already paid on the excess amount to the agent will be recovered from him. The object of Monthly Income Scheme Account is to facilitate easy monthly/regular payments of interest to an account holder. The other relevant important features of this scheme may be stated as follows: The depositor may open more than one account subject to the condition that deposits in all accounts taken together shall not exceed Rs.3,00,000/- in single account and Rs.6,00,000/- in joint account on or after 01.02.2000. The interest is payable at 8% p.a. on the completion of each month. Withdrawal is not permitted for a period of six years from the date of opening of an account. Premature closure of account is permitted by deduction of 1% of the deposit after expiry of 3 years from the date of deposit. Considering the above Rules and Regulations governing the Monthly Income Scheme Account, we think the conversion of account from single to joint on 30.05.2006 adding the names of complainants sons appears to be not illegal and against Rules and Regulations. Rule 168 (7) permits conversion of MIS Account from single to joint account. In this Rule it is stated that such conversion will not be available for conversion of MIS account opened irregularly by exceeding the prescribed limits from single to joint or vice versa in order to compound the irregularity. In the present case when the accounts were opened in the name of complainant and his wife there was no irregularity and it had not crossed the limit prescribed. Therefore we think the second part of Rule 168 (7) which prohibits conversion of irregular MIS Account from single to joint account is not applicable. Therefore our conclusion is that in the case of joint account holders if one of them dies the surviving depositor can request to convert the single account into joint account. There is no prohibition under Rule 168 (7) for such conversion of single account to joint account. The complainant intended to invest Rs.6,00,000/- in the joint names of himself and his two sons after the death of his wife. He expressed such desire by giving applications on 30.05.2006 while reporting the death of his wife. The then Post-Master accepted his request and treated the sons of complainant as co-depositors with complainant and continued the old deposits. We think such conversion of single account into joint account is permitted under Rule 168 (7) as noted above. Even assuming that such a step was not allowed under the Rules, the Postal Department is estopped from denying the validity of these deposits under MIS Accounts, when once it accepted the deposits and continued for sufficient time by paying monthly interest to complainant. The first two deposits totally for Rs.2,50,000/- have matured for payment on 31.03.2009. The other deposit for Rs.3,50,000/- would also be matured by the end of this month. The Postal Department should have returned the first two deposits after 31.03.2009. The objections raised by Postal Department cannot be sustained in Law. The Postal Department cannot be allowed to raise objection regarding validity of deposits at the fag end. Hence we hold that there is deficiency in service by OPs and accordingly point No.1 is held affirmative. Point No.2: It is submitted that the OPs have already recovered the interest paid on the excess amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from 01.03.2006 the date on which complainants wife died till 30.05.2006 the date on which the death was reported and the accounts were again converted into joint accounts. Recovery of this interest appears to be valid and cannot be questioned. It is noticed that the first two deposits became payable on 31.03.2009. These two deposits are not paid to complainant till now. Therefore we think till the date of payment of the said deposits it has to carry the same rate of interest. The other deposit for Rs.3,50,000/- would also become payable by the end of this month. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case we think compensation need not be separately allowed as the deposits are ordered to be returned with interest. The complainant contended that he is also entitled to bonus on maturity of deposits. In the present case, the deposits were on 31.03.2003 and 30.04.2004. Therefore in view of Rule 163 (a) the complainant is entitled to bonus. The said provision is as follows: The Closure of account on maturity/pre-mature closure of account will be done by the office at which the account stands. Prior approval of Head Post Office by the Sub Office will not be required. (a) Payment on Maturity:- Maturity period of the scheme is six years. On or after expiry of 6 years from the date of opening the depositor will be paid the deposit made at the time of opening of account along with bonus equal to 10% of the amount of deposit. In the withdrawal voucher the principal and the bonus will be shown separately. In respect of accounts opened on or after 13.02.2006 no bonus will be paid. Hence point No.2 is held accordingly. Point No.3: Hence we pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is allowed with costs of Rs.1,000/-. The OPs shall repay the deposits of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- with bonus under MIS Account No. 472725 and Account No. 472726 respectively with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. on the said deposits from 01.04.2009 till the date of payment besides paying the monthly interest accrued due on these deposits till 31.03.2009 if not already paid. The OPs shall also repay on or after 01.05.2010 the deposit of Rs.3,50,000/- with bonus under MIS Account No. 473029 with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. on the said deposit from 01.05.2010 till the date of payment besides paying the monthly interest accrued due on this deposit till 30.04.2010 if not already paid. The complainant and his sons A. Pradeep Kumar and A. Sathish Kumar shall give necessary discharge vouchers/receipts as may be required. The above said order shall be complied within 6 weeks from the date of this order. Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 08th day of April 2010. MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
