DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE
PRESENT: Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB : PRESIDENT
Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) : MEMBER
Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER
Friday the 30th day of August 2024
CC. 122/2018
Complainant
Dr. G. Haridas,
House No. 12, Nethaji Nagar,
Kottooli (PO),
Kozhikode – 673 016.
(Adv. Sri. Pavithran.K.)
Opposite Parties
- The Senior Post Master,
Head Post Office,
Kozhikode.
- Postmaster General,
Northern Region, Kozhikode.
- Department of Post,
Government of India.
ORDER
By Sri. V. BALAKSRISHNAN – MEMBER
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
- The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:
The complainant received a notice issued by Assistant Postmaster (SB), Kozhikode Post Office asking him to withdraw some excess amount urgently from his PPF Account 1150 due to some audit objection. On 21/11/2015 he submitted an objection letter requesting to drop the action. The PPF account of him went smoothly with interest crediting in subsequent 2 years ending in April 2016 and April 2017. He was not given any reply for his submission and naturally he thought that action on audit objection was dropped.
- On 02/05/2017 the complainant went to the Head Post Office, Kozhikode to close his daughter’s PPF Account No. 1149. Initially they refused to give redemption cheque stating that it was linked to audit objection. Later on, after giving an undertaking that any future genuine and convincing liability on his part on that account would be refunded from his active PPF Account 1150, they issued the cheque to him. The behaviour of the Assistant Postmaster was in a rude and impolite manner and it hurted him. On the same day, the opposite parties issued a letter dated 02/08/2016 stating that his representation submitted on 21/11/2015 was not accepted. The letter showed excess deposit of Rs. 2.5 lakhs and stated that SB rate interest would be paid to him. Gross mistake in the letter is seen as deposit in 2002-2007 exceeds minimum limit. No further communication was received by the complainant.
- On 07/04/2018 when the complainant presented his PPF Account pass book, the amount posted on 01/04/2008 showed withdrawal of Rs. 30,199/-. No interest of 2017-2018 is seen posted. It was a shock to him and on the same day a letter was issued to the first opposite party, requesting to rectify it. A reply was received on 13/04/2018 from the first opposite party and it was irregular and irresponsible in its contents. The letter stated that the interest correction of Rs. 1,93,080/- was made on his PPF Account on 04/05/2017 on the basis of letter dated 16/11/2015, on the basis of the undertaking given by him on 02/05/2017. The action of the opposite parties is unjustified. Also initial excess deposit of Rs. 2,50,000/- communicated was corrected to 3,91,000/- and this was not communicated to him earlier. The first opposite party has no authority to withdraw an amount of Rs. 1,93,080/- from his PPF Account without proper communication to him and without giving him an opportunity to raise objection, if any. On 11/04/2018 he met the Senior Officials including the Postmaster General (North Zone) and apprised his grievance, but obtained no help even after 10 days. Hence the complaint to direct the first opposite party to restore of PPF Account balance, as the withdrawal made is totally irregular and unjustified and to award compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the mental agony suffered.
- The opposite parties have resisted the complaint by filing written version jointly wherein they have denied all the allegations and claims made against them in the complaint. The PPF Account in the name of the complainant was opened at Manchery Head Post Office (Account No. 1159) on 27/03/1999 with deposit of Rs. 37,000/-. The account was transferred to Aluva Head Post Office on 29/11/2008 and then transferred to Kozhikode Head Post Office on 22/11/2011 and assigned account No. 1150 (0697682888). A minor account in the name of the daughter of the complainant Laxmi Haridas was operated through the complainant was opened on 29/01/2002 at Manjeri Head Post Office with deposit of Rs. 10,000/- (Account No. 1214). This account was also transferred to Aluva Head Post Office on 29/11/2008 and further transferred to Kozhikode Head Post Office on 22/11/2011 assigning account No. 1149 (0697684576). One more minor account No. 1220 (1366379588) in the name of the complainant’s son Ashok Haridas was opened at Manjery Head Post Office with a deposit of Rs. 60,000/- was also operated by the complainant.
- The maximum subscription that an individual can make in his self-account and accounts opened by him on behalf of minor (s) in a financial year has been changed at different times and details are given below.
UP to 14/11/2002 : Rs. 60,000/-
w.e.f. 15/11/2002: Rs. 70,000/-
w.e.f. 01/12/2011: Rs. 1,00,000/-
w.e.f. 13/08/2014: Rs. 1,50,000/-
- This case first spotted in para 10 (c) and (d) of Inspection Report on Calicut HPO by Accounts Officer ICO (SB), O/o Postmaster General, Northern Region, Calicut conducted during 25/06/2014 and 10/07/2014. Following irregularities were noticed by AO, ICO(SB), O/o PMG.
“Subscription made by the individual in his self-account and accounts opened by him on behalf of minor(s) of whom he is the guardian is combined under rule 3(1) should not exceed the maximum limit of subscription of Rs. 70,000/- (wef 01/12/2011 Rs. 1,00,000/-). As per clarification No. 8 MOF (DEA) letter No. F.3 (1)-PD/70 dated 24/09/1970 the amount will not carry interest and as such the depositor have to withdraw the excess deposit made immediately”. The deposits in the three accounts operated by the complainant had exceeded the maximum limit of subscription during the years 2001-2002, 2002-2003, 2003-2004, 2004-2005, 2005-2006,2006-2007. All the excess credits were made in these accounts when the accounts were standing at Manjeri HO. On receipt of the inspection Report of ICO (SB) 2014 the complainant was addressed vide office of the first opposite party vide letter No. SB/MISC dated 16/11/2015. He was intimated about the objection raised on the excess credit made in the accounts operated by him. In the said letter he was requested to withdraw excess amount credited in the account and also to present the pass books for further verification.The purpose of letter was to make the depositor aware about audit objection against his accounts.
- A representation dated 21/11/2015 was obtained from the complainant and forwarded to office of the second opposite party along with other representations vide Senior Postmaster’s letter No. IR/ICO(SB) 2014 DLGS dated 07/01/2016.
- The representation submitted by the complainant was rejected by the second opposite party vide letter No. ICO(SB)CT/E/CLT/2015 dated 19/01/2016 wherein it was advised to regularize the account by refunding the excess deposit in respective financial years without interest as mentioned in clarification vide 8(MOF (DEA) letter No. F3 (1) – PD/70 dated 24/09/1070. Again a registered letter No. SBCC/IR-ICO(SB)-2014 dated 02/08/2016 was issued by Senior Postmaster, Calicut to the complainant to intimate that second respondent has not accepted his representation and he was requested to withdraw the excess deposit. But the letter was not delivered and returned with a remark “addressee left”. On scrutiny of passbook of the above mentioned PPF accounts and the limit on maximum subscription an individual could make in his self-account and accounts opened by him on behalf of minor (S) during the respective periods, it came to the notice that the actual amount of excess deposit was Rs. 3,91,000/- instead of 2,50,000/-. Senior Postmaster has addressed Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Calicut for seeking permission for adjusting excess amount, towards subsequent years in which deposit was minimum vide letter No. SB/MISC/2016-2017 dated 28/03/2017. The details of excess deposits and excess interest allowed were also mentioned in the concerned letter. Further Senior Postmaster vide letter no. IR/ICO(SB)2014 dated 02/06/2018 has intimated that the excess deposited amounts had been adjusted towards the subsequent years in which there was no deposit or the deposit was minimum. After receipt of undertaking from complainant on 02/05/2017, interest correction of Rs. 1,93,080/- was made on 04/05/2017. The withdrawals taken during 2001-2002 to 2011-2012 were considered and that amount was deducted from the excess deposits made during that period. If withdrawals are not considered, the excess interest to be corrected would have been Rs. 7,27,608/- instead of Rs. 1,93,080/-.
- Complainant approached the office of the first opposite party on 02/05/2017 for closure of PPF account in the name of the daughter (account No. 0697684576). Then Assistant Postmaster (Savings Bank) reminded him about the IR objection against the account and politely requested to wait for closure of the account since permission from second opposite party has to be obtained as an objection is pending in the account. The undelivered letter SBCC/IR-ICO(SB)2014 dated 02/08/2016 was also handed over to him on the same day. In this letter Senior Postmaster has mentioned that interest at SB rate would be paid on the excess deposit. It was a mistake. As communicated by Office of Postmaster General, Northern region, Calicut by quoting clarification No. 8(M)F(DEA) letter No. F.3(1)-PD/70 dated 24/09/1970) the amount will not carry interest and as such the depositor have to withdraw the same immediately. The complainant shouted with staff at SB Branch. As ICO (SB) inspection was going on at that time, he argued with the then Accounts officer about the IR objection. He also stated that he would not leave the office until he got the account closed. The details of IR objection were explained to him by that time. Then Senior Postmaster permitted to close the account 0697684576 in the name of Lakshmi Haridas after receipt of an undertaking from him. In that undertaking he requested for permission to close the account in the name of his daughter and stated that “I hereby undertake that any future genuine and convincing liability on my part on those accounts shall be refunded from my active PPF account 1150”.
- After receipt of undertaking from the complainant on 02/05/2017, interest correction of Rs. 1,93,080/- was made on 04/05/2017. The interest correction was reflected at the time of interest posting of the financial year 2017-2018. As the interest correction amount Rs. 1,93,080/- is more that the current year interest of Rs. 1,62,881/-, the consolidated interest payment was reflected as withdrawal of Rs. 30,199/-. The withdrawals taken during 2001-2002 to 2011-2012 were considered and that amount was deducted from the excess deposits made during that period. Even if the interest correction was made on 04/05/2017, it was reflected at the time of interest posting of the financial year 2017-2018. The complainant has submitted a request regarding the interest posting, on 07/04/2018. Senior Postmaster vide letter No. SBCO/IR-ICO(SB)2014 dated 13/04/2018 had clarified that the reduction in the balance in PPF account is due to interest correction.
- On scrutiny of passbook of the above mentioned PPF accounts and limit on maximum subscription that an individual can make in his self-account and accounts opened by him on behalf of minor (S) during the respective periods, it came to the notice that the actual amount of excess deposit was Rs. 3,91,000/- instead of Rs. 2,50,000/-. The details were communicated to the complainant in person on 02/05/2017 when he approached Calicut HO for closure of PPF account 0697684576. Recovery of the amount was made from the interest already credited in excess. The interest correction was made on the basis of IR objection and clarification vide No. 8MOF(DEA) letter No. F3(1)-PD/70 dated 24/09/1970 as instructed by Accounts Officer ICO (SB), office of PMG Northern Region, Calicut.
- As per Rule 18 in chapter IV of POSB Manual Vol 111 Post Office Savings Bank manual the head Savings Bank shall be competent to recover any interest or any other amount paid in excess in the same manner as an arrears of land revenue.
- It is pertinent to mention here that the Department of Post is carrying on the Savings Bank business under the provisions of the Government of India Savings Bank Act 1873. As per section 14 of the above act, no suit or legal proceedings shall lie against the Secretary or any other officer of the Government of India in respect of anything which is done in good faith or intended to be done under this act. Hence on this ground itself the complaint is not maintainable.
- There is no wilful act or default on the part of any employee in this case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in another case held that National Savings Certificates with the terms and conditions embodied thereon constituted a contract between the Government of India as seller and the holders of the national Savings Certificate. But as the contract was contrary to the terms notified by the Government of India and this was due to inadvertence of staff, it does not became a contract binding the Government of India being unlawful and void. Account opening form submitted by the complainant in respect of PPF account number in the name of the complainant, Lakshmi Haridas and Ashok Haridas (minors at the time of opening the account) is produced, that included the admission of complainant that he had given a declaration stating “I/We agree to abide by such rules framed by the Central Government as may be applicable to the account from time to time”. With the above contentions, the opposite parties pray to dismiss the compliant.
- The points that arise for determination in this complaint are;
- Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, as alleged?
2. Reliefs and costs.
- Evidence consists of oral evidence of PW1 and Ext A1to A10 on the part of the complainant. On part of opposite parties oral evidence was also given as RW1 and Exts B1 to B18 were marked.
- Heard. Argument notes are submitted by both sides.
- Point No 1: In order to substantiate his case, complainant got himself examined as PW1. PW1 has filed proof affidavit and deposed in terms of the averments in the complaint. Ext A1 is the copy of the letter sent by Assistant Post Master (SB), Calicut to the complainant on 16/11/2015, Ext A2 is the copy of the letter sent by complainant to the Post Master (SB), Calicut handed in person on 21/11/2015, Ext A3 is the copy of the letter sent by complainant to the Post Master, Kozhikode on 02/05/2017, regarding the closure of PPF account of Lakshmi Haridas, Ext A4 is the copy of the letter dated 02/08/2016 given by first opposite party, handed in person on 02/05/2017, Ext A5 is the copy of the letter dated 07/04/2018 handed over by the complaint to the Post Master Head Post Office, Kozhikode, Ext A6 is the copy of the letter dated 13/04/2018 sent by first opposite party to the complainant, Ext A7 is the copy of the letter dated 24/04/2018 sent by complainant to the second opposite party, requesting to reverse the withdrawal, Ext A8 is the copy of the letter dated 12/06/2018 sent by the complainant to the second opposite party, Ext A9 is the copy of the reply letter dated 12/06/2018 sent by the second opposite party to the complainant, Ext A10 is the copy of the letter dated 14/06/2018 sent by the second opposite party to the complainant.
- The Senior Post Master, Calicut was examined as RW1 and she has filed proof affidavit and deposed supporting the contentions in the written version. Ext B1 to B18 were marked. Ext B1 is the extract of paragraph 10(c) and (d) of IR of ICOCSB 2014 (Audit report copy), Ext B2 is the copy of the letter dated 16/11/2015 sent by the Assistant Post Master, Calicut to the complainant, Ext B3 is the copy of the letter dated 07/01/2015 sent by the Senior Post Master, Calicut, HO to the Accounts Officer ICD (SB) Calicut, Ext B4 is the copy of the reply letter dated 19/01/2016 sent by Accounts Officer ICO (SB) to the senior Post Master, Calicut HO, Ext B5 is the copy of the wrapper of letter which was not undelivered, Ext B6 is the copy of the letter dated 28/03/2017 sent by Senior Post Master Calicut to the Senior Superintendent of post offices, Calicut Division, Ext B7 is the copy of the letter dated 02/06/2017 sent from the Senior Post Master Calicut-1 addressed to Accounts Officer ICD(SB) Calicut-11 regarding the interest correction, Ext B8 is the copy of the under taking given by complainant to the Post Master, Calicut regarding the closure of PPF account of his daughter, Ext B9 is the calculation sheet shown on behalf of opposite parties regarding the interest correction made, Ext B10 is the copy of the letter dated 07/04/2018 sent by complainant to the Assistant Post Master HPO Calicut about the discrepancy in PPF interest, Ext B11 is the copy of the reply letter dated 13/04/2018 sent by Senior Post Master, Calicut to the complainant, Ext B12 is the copy of the abstract of POSB manual volume, Ext B13 is the copy of the section 14 of Saving Banking Act 1873, Ext B14 is the copy of extract of the Judgement dated 01/05/1995 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, Ext B15 is the copy of the Judgement dated 10/09/2012 of Hon’ble Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ext B16 is the copy of account opening form of complainant, Ext B17 is the copy of account opening form of complainant and his daughter and Ext B18 is the copy of account opening form of complainant and his son.
- The specific case of the complaint is that a Personnel Provident Fund account was started with the opposite parties in the year 1999 in his name. Subsequently in the name of his minor daughter another PPF account was started from 29/01/2002 with the opposite parties. Also another PPF account was started in the name of his minor son from 20/11/2002 onwards. The complainant was operating the 3 accounts, including withdrawal of interest till 2014-2015.
- Later in 2015an Audit objection was raised by the audit party. Ext A1 shows that the complainant was informed that the deposits in financial years 2001-2002 to 2006-2007 in the 3 accounts together exceeded the maximum limit permissible and he was instructed to be present with pass books for verification and withdraw the excess amount urgently. The instruction was objected by the complainant as shown in Ext A2. By that time Senior Post Master had informed the complainant vide Ext B4 stating that the Audit has raised objection for the excess credit and instructed to refund the amount. Also it was mentioned S.B rate of interest would be paid to complainant.
- Later the complainant received the Ext A6 stating that interest correction of Rs.1,93,080/- for the excess amount credited in the three PPF accounts of the complainant and his minor children were effected in 4/05/2017.
- The opposite parties has taken the contention that the information given to complainant that the excess credited amount would bear SB rate of interest was a clerical mistake. It is submitted by the opposite parties that the closure of account of the daughter of complainant was permitted based on the undertaking given by him that any future genuine and convincing liability on his part in those accounts should be refunded from his other active PPF accounts. This was shown in Ext B8 (same as Ext A3).
- The opposite parties contended that in the account opening form, (Ext B16, B17 and B18) that the complainant had signed admitting the S No 5 agreeing to abide by such rules framed by central government as may be appreciable to the account from time to time.
- On-going through the entire oral and documentary evidences of both parties we observe the following;
- The complainant started his deposits in PPF account on 27-03-1999. He also started another PPF account in the name of his minor daughter on 29/01/2002. Again another PPF account was started on 20/11/2002 in the name of his minor son. All the accounts were started at post office Mancheri and subsequently 2 accounts were transferred to Aluva and Calicut. The intimation of audit objections of remittance of surplus amount was informed to the complainant only on 16/11/2015 vide Ext A1. From 27/03/1999 to 16/11/2015 the complainant was not informed about the admitted maximum limitation of remittance in PPF accounts in a financial year and in between those days the opposite parties collected the excess amount from him. The staff members of opposite parties are trained to do the operations of day to day business of post office according to PPF rules. Moreover, the post master usually would be an experienced person. In the present case, it is seen that all the 3 accounts were started in Mancheri post office. Only when the audit authorities pointed out about the mistake of remittance in a financial year that exceeded the maximum limit, the opposite parties were aware of it. It is an admitted fact that the excess money collected was in the custody of opposite parties for a long period. The Ext B9 clearly shows the excess over the maximum amount collected by opposite parties. The excess over the limit was collected in financial years 2001-02 to 2006-07. The 8% interest credited already for the amounts in excess was seen recovered and the total amount so calculated comes to RS. 1,93,080/-. As per the table shown in Ext B9 there was an excess deposit of Rs. 10,000/- in the financial year 2001-02, Rs. 1,20,000/- in the financial year 2002-03, Rs. 1,20,000/- in the financial year 2003-04, Rs. 70,000/- in the financial year 2004-05, Rs. 1000/- in the financial year 2005-06 and Rs. 70,000/- in the financial year 2006-07. By recovering the interest already credited, on a later period (on 04.05.2017), the opposite parties were using the money of complainant without considering the time value of money. It cannot be disputed that there is a greater benefit in receiving a sum of money now, rather than an identical sum later. So it is beyond any doubt that the opposite parties had benefited by receiving the amount from the complainant in the financial year 2001-02 to 2006-07 and paying back the amount without of interest on a later period in the year 2017.
- The clause 16 of Ext B12 mentions about the account opened incorrectly. It specifies that ‘If he so desires, be converted in to an account of another category initio, if he was eligible to open an account of such category on the date of application’. On verifying the evidence in hand there is no such initiative taken by the opposite parties to convert excess collected amount to another type of deposits as per the above clause.
- The case referred in Ext B15 is different from the present case in hand. Non-resident Indians can start only NRI and NRO accounts in India and they are banned from operating other saving accounts. In the present case the complainant and his family members are not non-resident Indians. In the referred case there are clear rules and regulations that a Non-resident Indian is not eligible to purchase Kisan Vikas Pathras. So opening of Kissan Vikas Pathras by non-resident Indians is a void agreement. But in the present case, there is no restriction in starting a PPF account for Indian citizens including minors. So in the present case opening of accounts for the complainant and his minor children are not a void agreement like purchasing Kissan Vikas Pathras by NRI as in case mentioned in Ext B15. In the present case the staff members of opposite parties alone are responsible in collecting excess amount from the complainant in financial years 2001-02 to 2006-07. It is also noticed that only when the audit authorities pointed out the mistake after many years, the opposite parties opened their eyes and understood their mistake.
- It has also came out in evidence that while opening the account all the rules and regulations were not given to the complainant.
- Also the case pointed out in Ext B14 is entirely different from the present case. In the cited case, the complainant was enjoying interest of 11% which was admitted by the postal department with effect from 01.04.1987. In the present case the opposite parties collected the amount and kept in their custody and utilised the amount for more than 10 years and then returned the same without any interest.
- Having collected the amount and utilised the same for more than 10 years and earned interest out of it, the opposite parties cannot now say that they are not liable to pay interest. The complainant cannot be penalised for the latches of the opposite parties.
- Going by the evidence in hand, we find that the recovery of Rs. 1,93,080/- made by the opposite parties from the complainant, amounts to unfair business practice and deficiency in service on the side of opposite parties. Hence the complainant is to be paid Rs. 1,93,080/- (the interest correction made) by the opposite parties.
- Also the complainant is to be compensated for the mental agony and hardship suffered. Considering the entire circumstances we are of the view that Rs. 10,000/- would suffice as compensation.
- Point No. 2:- In the light of the finding on the above point, the complaint is disposed of as follows;
a) CC.122/2018 is allowed in part.
b) The opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,93,080/- (Rupees one lakh ninety three thousand and eighty only) to the complainant.
c) The opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation to the complainant for the mental agony and hardship suffered.
d) The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 3000/- (Rupees three thousand only) to the complainant as cost of proceedings.
e) The payment as afore stated shall be made within 30 days of the receipt of copy of this order, otherwise, Rs. 1,93,080/- shall carry an interest of 9% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment.
Pronounced in open Commission on this, the 30th day of August, 2024.
Date of Filing: 26/04/2018
Sd/ Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant :
Ext A1 - Copy of the letter sent by Assistant Post Master (SB), Calicut to the
complainant on 16/11/2015.
Ext A2 - Copy of the letter sent by complainant to the Post Master (SB), Calicut
handed in person on 21/11/2015.
Ext A3 - Copy of the letter sent by complainant to the Post Master, Kozhikode on
02/05/2017, regarding the closure of PPF account of Lakshmi Haridas. Ext A4 - Copy of the letter dated 02/08/2016 given by first opposite party,
handed in person on 02/05/2017.
Ext A5 - Copy of the letter dated 07/04/2018 handed over by the complaint to
the Post Master Head Post Office, Kozhikode.
Ext A6 - Copy of the letter dated 13/04/2018 sent by first opposite party to the complainant.
Ext A7- Copy of the letter dated 24/04/2018 sent by complainant to the second
opposite party, requesting to reverse the withdrawal.
Ext A8 - Copy of the letter dated 12/06/2018 sent by the complainant to the
second opposite party.
Ext A9 - Copy of the reply letter dated 12/06/2018 sent by the second opposite
party to the complainant.
Ext A10 - Copy of the letter dated 14/06/2018 sent by the second opposite party
to the complainant.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party
Ext B1 - Extract of paragraph 10(c) and (d) of IR of ICOCSB 2014 (Audit report copy).
Ext B2 - Copy of the letter dated 16/11/2015 sent by the Assistant Post Master,
Calicut to the complainant.
Ext B3 - Copy of the letter dated 07/01/2015 sent by the Senior Post Master,
Calicut, HO to the Accounts Officer ICD (SB) Calicut.
Ext B4 - Copy of the reply letter dated 19/01/2016 sent by Accounts Officer ICO
(SB) to the senior Post Master, Calicut HO.
Ext B5 - Copy of the wrapper of letter which was not undelivered.
Ext B6 - Copy of the letter dated 28/03/2017 sent by Senior Post Master Calicut
to the Senior Superintendent of post offices, Calicut Division.
Ext B7 - Copy of the letter dated 02/06/2017 sent from the Senior Post Master
Calicut-1 addressed to Accounts Officer ICD (SB) Calicut-11 regarding
the interest correction.
Ext B8 - Copy of the under taking given by complainant to the Post Master,
Calicut regarding the closure of PPF account of his daughter,
Ext B9 - Calculation sheet shown on behalf of opposite parties regarding the
interest correction made.
Ext B10 - Copy of the letter dated 07/04/2018 sent by complainant to the
Assistant Post Master HPO Calicut about the discrepancy in PPF
Interest.
Ext B11 - Copy of the reply letter dated 13/04/2018 sent by Senior Post Master, Calicut to the complainant,
Ext B12 - Copy of the abstract of POSB manual volume,
Ext B13 - Copy of the section 14 of Saving Banking Act 1873,
Ext B14 - Copy of extract of the Judgement dated 01/05/1995 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India,
Ext B15 - Copy of the Judgement dated 10/09/2012 of Hon’ble Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
Ext B16 - Copy of account opening form of complainant,
Ext B17 - Copy of account opening form of complainant and his daughter and
Ext B18 - Copy of account opening form of complainant and his son.
Witnesses for the Complainant
PW1 -Dr. G. Haridas
Witnesses for the opposite party
RW1 -Gouri Sangeetha.B
Sd/ Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
True Copy,
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar.
