Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/125/2016

Kuppammal - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Postmaster General South - Opp.Party(s)

R. Kannan

20 Apr 2022

ORDER

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present:   Hon’ble THIRU. JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH           :     PRESIDENT

                 Thiru R. VENKATESAPERUMAL                               :      MEMBER

 

F.A. No. 125 of 2016

(Against the order passed in C.C. No.169 of 2013 dated 02.05.2016 on the file of the D.C.D.R.F. Chennai (South).

 

 

Wednesday, the 20^th day of April 2022

 

1.  Smt. Kuppammal (Deceased)

 

2.  Smt. Kousalya

     No.65/A, AGS Colony

     Indira Gandhi Street

     Alwarthirunagar

    Chennai – 600 087.

 

3.  Smt. Lalitha

     19, Iyamperumal Street

     Royapettah, Chennai – 14.

 

4.  A.P. Sureshchander

     307, S.V. Nagar Extension

     Perumalpattu

  Thiruvallur District.                                                                                                                      .. Appellants 1 to 4 /

                                                                                                                                                            Complainants 1 to 4

 

 

5.  Preama

     No.7, Kalainzhar Nagar

     1^st Street, Thirumullaivayal

     Chennai – 600 062.

 

 

6.  Chandra

     No.13, 4^th Cross Street

     V.O.C. Nagar

     Thirumullaivayal

     Chennai – 600 062.

 

7.  Hema

     No.7, Kalainzhar Nagar

     1^st Street, Thirumullaivayal

     Chennai – 600 062.

 

8.  Dhanapal

     No.78, Meyar Basudeve Street

     Old Washermanpet

     Chennai – 600 021.

 

9.  Eathiraj

     No.7, Kalainzhar Nagar

     1^st Street, Thirumullaivayal

     Chennai – 600 062.

 

10. Prakash

      No.C-3  Judges Avenue

      L.B. Road, Thiruvanmiyur

      Chennai – 600 041.

 

11.  Chandrasekar

      S/o. Venkatesan

      No.4, Kalainzhar Nagar

      Thirumullaivayal

      Chennai – 600 062.                                                                                          .. Appellants 5 to 11/LRs of Deceased

                                              1^st Appellant/ Complainants

 

- Vs –

1.  The Post Master General (South)

     Tamil Nadu Postal Circle

      Anna Salai,  Chennai-600 002

 

2.  The Post Master

     Pallavaram Post Office

    Chennai- 600 043.                                                                                                         .. Respondents/ Opposite Parties   

    Counsel for Appellants /Complainants                : M/s. A. Thirumaran

    Counsel for the Respondents / Opposite Parties :  M/s. K.Vinayagam                                                                         

This appeal is coming before us for final hearing on 24.02.2022 and on hearing the arguments of the counsel for the Appellants and Respondents and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following :-

O R D E R

R.SUBBIAH J., PRESIDENT

1.        Being not satisfied with the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South), in C.C. No.169 of 2013 dated 02.05.2016, the present appeal has been filed by the Appellants / Complainants under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as against the            dis-allowed portion.

 

2.    Originally the complaint was filed by the Appellants 1 to 4, as the legal heirs of one G.Hemavathy.  During the pendency of the appeal, the first appellant/ complainant Kuppammal had died.  Hence, the legal heirs of the deceased Kuppammal were brought on record as appellants 5 to 11, pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 24.09.2018 in M.P. No.214 of 2018.

 

3.  The factual background culminating this appeal is as follows:  It is the case of the complainants that the sister of complainants 1 to 4, G. Hemavathy, Wife of G. Munirathinam died on 15.12.2008.  She had no issues.  She left behind only the complainants 1 to 4 as legal heirs.  During her life time, she was holding six accounts under Monthly Income Scheme at Pallavaram Post Office.  In each account, she deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/-.  Her Passbook Numbers are 27579 to 27584.  After the death of said Hemavathy, the complainants obtained Succession Certificate from the District Court, Chengalput in O.P.No.75/2009. The complainant produced the succession certificate to the 2^nd respondent for payment. The 2^nd respondent paid only a sum of Rs.2,24,076/-, out of Rs.3,00,000/- and the balance of Rs.75,924/- has not been paid.  The 2^nd Respondent has erroneously deducted a sum of Rs.75,924/-.  Moreover, the respondents have not paid any interest upon the savings, from 15.12.2008, i.e., the date of death of the account holder till the date of payment.  Hence, the complainants issued a legal notice to the respondents on 06.02.2013 demanding the balance deposit amount and the interest payments.  But, the 1^st respondent issued a reply on 12.02.2013 with a bald and vague statement.  Thereafter, there was no response or payment from the respondents.  Thus, the respondents have committed deficiency of service. Therefore, the present complaint has been filed by the complainants seeking the following reliefs :-

1. direct the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.75,924/- being the balance amount in the Savings Account of G. Hemavathy together with interest from 15.12.2008;
2. direct the respondents to pay Rs.20,000/- towards damages for negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the respondents.
3. Direct to pay the costs.

 

4. The said complaint was resisted by the opposite parties by filing a version, stating that one G.Hemavathy, w/o.Late Munirathinam, has opened an account under Monthly Income Scheme at Pammal Post Office for a sum of Rs.5,02,000/- Besides that, she had deposited Rs.3,00,000/- in Pallavaram Post Office.  As per the provisions contained in Rule 158 of POSB Manual Vol.I, a depositor may open more than one MIS account, subject to the condition that, deposits in all accounts taken together shall not exceed Rs.3 lakhs in single account and Rs.6 lakhs in joint account, on or after 01.02.2000.  Besides, as per Rule 159(b) of the said rules, during the time of opening of new MIS account, a declaration in the application form (SB-3) will be obtained from the depositor to the effect that the deposits in all accounts taken together shall not exceed the maximum limits.   The Depositor had opened MIS accounts for a sum of Rs.5,02,000/- exceeding the prescribed limit of Rs.3 lakhs for single account at Pammal SO and that there is an excess investment of Rs.2,02,000/- at Pammal SO itself, which will not earn bonus/ interest due for MIS.  Despite the above, the depositor had suppressed the said facts, while opening six more MIS accounts at Pallavaram, which is highly irregular.  As such, the entire investment made at Pallavaram is irregular and so the amount invested in MIS will not earn bonus/ interest due for MIS.  The 2^nd opposite party had paid interest for 38 months for the sum of Rs.3 lakhs, invested by G.Hemavathy at Pallavaram Post Office.  The excess interest of Rs.75,924/- paid by the respondents was deducted from the original investment of Rs.3 lakhs.  After deducting Rs.75,924/- from Rs.3 lakhs, the balance amount of Rs.2,24,076/- was paid to the complainant.  Since they have acted only as per the guidelines issued under Monthly Income Scheme, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.  Thus, they sought for dismissal of the complaint.

 

5.  In order to prove the case, on the side of the complainants, common proof affidavit has been filed along with 4 documents which were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A4.  On the side of the opposite parties proof affidavit was filed but no documents were marked.

 

6.  The District Forum after analyzing the entire material placed on record and by relying upon Clause 167(6) of POSB Manual Volume I, has come to the conclusion that as per the said provision, the opposite parties ought to have refunded the excess amount of deposit with the POSB rate of interest to the depositor.  But the opposite parties have not returned the excess amount to the complainant with the post office savings rate of interest, but they have refunded only the deposit amount after deducting the interest paid towards the said deposits for 38 months.   Therefore, the opposite parties have committed deficiency of service in returning the said deposit amount to the complainants.  If the POSB rate of interest is calculated for the said deposit amount of Rs.3 lakhs, from the date of deposit i.e., 24.08.2005 to till the date of return of the said amount on 17.11.2011, the interest comes to Rs.43,875/-.  Hence, the District Forum directed the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.43,875/- with interest at the rate of 4.5% per annum, from 06.02.2013 till the date of payment and also to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- as cost to the complainants.  Thus, allowed the complaint in part.  Being not satisfied with the same, the present appeal has been filed by the complainants.

 

7.  It is the submission of the counsel for the complainants, receiving the deposit from the deceased depositor and subsequently denying the accrued interest for the deposit, is highly improper and against the principles of natural justice.  The deceased deposit holder maintained her postal savings at two places, namely, one at Pallavaram Post Office and another at Pammal Post Office.  So, this cannot be construed as “her single account together” or in any joint account because she was maintaining deposits at different post offices.  Even if there is excess investment beyond the prescribed limit, under the Post Office Monthly Income Scheme, the excess amount deposited should have been refunded by the Postmaster or the Sub Post Master with the POSB rate of interest to the depositor.  In the instant case, the postal authorities have failed to pay the interest amount, especially when they have chosen to recover the alleged excess interest amount of Rs.75,924/-, paid on the above deposit amounts, for 38 months.  Therefore, there is deficiency of service on the part of the postal authorities.  If proper calculation is made, the total amount payable by the postal authorities is Rs.1,88,451.36.  In the written arguments, counsel for the appellants has annexed the details of deposited amount with interest.

 

8.  Per contra, counsel for the respondents disputed the statement of accounts produced by the counsel for the complainants and submitted that the District Forum itself has made a calculation as per the POSB rate of interest for the deposit amount of Rs.3 lakhs, from the date of deposit i.e., 24.08.2005 to till the date of return of the said amount on 17.11.2011 and has awarded a sum of Rs.43,875/-.   Hence, the order passed by the District Forum is perfectly correct and need not be interfered with the same. 

 

9.   Heard the submission of the counsel for the appellants and the respondents and perused the material available on record. 

 

10.  The main submission of the counsel for the appellants is that the deceased maintained two postal savings, one at Pallavaram and another at Pammal.  Therefore, this cannot be construed as single account together or a joint account because she was maintaining deposits at different post offices.  But, we find that in the instant case, the depositor had opened the monthly income accounts for a sum of Rs.5,02,000/- exceeding the prescribed limit of Rs.3 lakhs for a single account at Pammal Sub Post Office.  Therefore, there is excess investment of Rs.2,02,000/- at Pammal Sub Post Office.  But, the same does not earn bonus/ interest.  As per Rule 158 of POSB Manual Vol.I, the deposits in all accounts taken together shall not exceed Rs.3 lakhs in a single account and Rs.6 lakhs in a joint account.  In the instant case, even if there are two accounts, if the deposits are taken together, it exceeds more than Rs.6 lakhs.  Therefore, the submission of the counsel for the complainants, since she had postal savings at two different places it cannot be taken as a single account has no significance.  However, the District Forum by relying upon clause 167(6) of POSB Manual Volume I, has awarded the POSB rate of interest of 4.5%, for the deposit amount of Rs.3 lakhs, from the date of deposit i.e., 24.08.2005 to till the date of return of the said amount on 17.11.2011 and has awarded a sum of Rs.43,875/-.    It would be appropriate to extract clause 167(6) below :

“ (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.”

Hence, we are of the opinion that the calculation made by the District Forum is in accordance with Clause 167(6) of the POSB Manual Volume I. 

 

11.  Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the District Forum.  The appellants have not made out any case warranting this Court to make any interference.  In the result, the appeal is dismissed.  Consequently, the order dated 02.05.2016 passed in C.C. No.169 of 2013 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South) is confirmed.   

 

 

R. VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                                                                           R.SUBBIAH

         MEMBER                                                                                                                                             PRESIDENT

 

 

Index :  Yes/ No

AVR/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/March/2022