DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No. 157/2010
Krishna Kumar, Bhardwaj
S/o Late Sh. Mahendra Pal Sharma
R/o 1702, Tower No.19, Paras Tierea,
Sector-137, Noida Expressway
(behind Advant Tower) Noida-201301 …Complainant
Versus
1. The Secretary & Chairman Post
I Floor, Sanchar Bhawan/Dak Bhawan
Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001
2. The Post Master General,
Agra Region, Office of the Post Master
General, Agra
3. The Senior Superintendent, Agra
Fort Post office, Agra …Opposite Parties
Date of Institution: 15.03.2010 Date of Order: 13.04.2017
Coram:
N.K. Goel, President
Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
Naina Bakshi, Member
The case of complainant, in nutshell, is that the complainant alongwith his wife Pushpa Bhardwaj visited No. OP 3 on 31.03.1994 to open the PPF account in the name of complainant and the OP No.3 advised him to open the account with his wife in joint B type of operation. The complainant followed the OP No.3’s instruction and filled the form according to their guidance and instruction. The OP 3 opened the PPF A/c No. 7005467 on 31.03.1994 for 15 years due on 31.03.2009 with Rs.11,000/- @ 13% interest. After 5 years of opening of the said account on 21.09.1999, he approached the OP No.3 and withdrew Rs. 8500/- with upto date interest entry in the said account and the updated entry in the Pass Book. He again visited OP No.3 on 26.10.2009 to withdraw his rest of the amount due to him on 31.03.2009 and presented the PPF Pass Book but OP No.3 illegally denied the payment. He issued a letter to the OP No.3 but no reply was received from OP No.3. On 04.11.2009 he sent a letter to the Post Master General, Agra with copy to the State Minister and higher ups of the Post and Telegraph Departments. It is submitted that on 30.11.2009 he sent a legal notice to the OPs. The OP No.3 replied on 11.01.10 which is not satisfactory. It is submitted that the opening of the PPF account is a contract which can be amended with the consent of both the parties only not by one. After contracting the same in the form of opening the said account, the OP cannot change the payment unilaterally. Hence, the actions of the OPs are illegal. Hence, pleading deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed the present complaint for the following reliefs:-
- Direct OPs to pay the balance amount of Rs.15357/- as on 21.09.09 with the rate of interest applicable on PPF till 31.03.09 and further from 31.03.09 to the date of payment @ 21% on the total amount due on 31.03.09.
- Direct the OPs to pay the cost of the notice and other expenses of Rs.5000/- and Rs.2 lacs for mental agony and persecution inflicted on the complainant.
OPs in their written statement have inter-alia stated that Sh. Krishna Kumar Bhardwaj & Smt. Pushpa Bhardwaj had opened a joint ‘B’ PPF account No.7005467 on 31.03.1994 at Agra Fort HO for Rs.11000/- irregular because the PPF account may be opened by a single person as per instruction/procedure laid down in D.G. Post, New Delhi L.No.1-23/75-SB dated 08.02.1979. But this procedure was not adopted for opening of PPF account inasmuch as the declaration on application form was accepted and signed on it at the time of opening of account. The said PPF account was opened against the contravention of rules and such account may be closed after paying interest as admissible on PO SB rates. Complainant sent a legal notice dated 01.12.2009 (and not on 30.11.2009) and a reply dated 11.01.2010 was sent to him. It is stated that the complainant had given his consent at point No.5 on the application for opening of account to follow the rules framed by Central Govt. applicable to the account from time to time and the joint PPF account was opened against contravention of rules. The postmaster is authorized to close the irregular account opened in joint names vide endorsement No.F-3(8)-PD/79 to DG P & T and their OM No.1-23/75-SB dated 15.11.1979 after payment of PS SB rates interest. Deficiency in service on the part of the OPs is denied. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. R. S. Nigam, S.S. POS, Agra has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OPs.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
We have heard the oral arguments on behalf of the OP and have also gone through the file very carefully.
Admittedly, the complainant had opened a joint PPF account with OP No.3 on 31.03.1994 at Agra Fort Rs.11000/- for 15 years. The OPs filed a copy of circular No.L.No.1-23/75-SB dated 08.02.1979 (copy Annexure-A) wherein it is mentioned that “ if a account is opened in joint names by mistake, the account will be treated to have been opened incorrectly by the Accounts Office. The account will have to be reguarlised by converting it into a single account in one of the names of the subscribers from the MOF (DEA). For this purpose the Accounts Office will obtain a revised application form for opening the account in one of the names of the subscribers which will be forwarded to the “The Under Secretary, Ministry of Finance (DEA) – NS Branch, New Delhi-I” for conversion of the account in a single account as the account was opened due to the fault on the part of the Accounts Office.”
From the said stipulation it is clear that as per the above circular the OPs had not informed the complainant regarding the opening of the incorrect PPF account in joint names. The OPs had given the part payment after maturity of the PPF account on 21.09.1999. OPs failed to send any intimation to the complainant regarding opening of the PPF account in the joint names wrongly though as per the rules and regulations the PPF account could be opened in single name. It was the duty of the OPs to have requested the complainant to send a revised application form for opening the account in one of the names (either the complainant or his wife). However, the OPs did not do so and now they are putting the entire blame on the complainant. It is not at all fair on their part. Being Govt. authorities they must have acted in a lawful manner but sat over the matter for about 15 years. The rules came to their notice only when they were asked to release the remaining amount after 15 years. Hence, there is a deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
We allow the complaint and direct the OPs to pay Rs.15357/- with interest upto 21.09.09 at the then prevailing PPF interest rates i.e. 13% p.a. and thereafter alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum on Rs.15,357/- till the date of payment. OPs shall also pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for physical harassment and mental agony and a sum of Rs.5,000/- including cost of the litigation to the complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which OPs shall become liable to pay the above said amount of Rs.15,357/- @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 13.04.17.
