Ld. Advocate for the complainant and OP2 are present. Judgement is ready and pronounced in open Commission. 

BY - SRI.SAURAV CHANDRA, MEMBER

1. Brief facts of the Complainant’s case are that the Opposite Parties are the Postal Department with whom the Complainant has a Senior Citizens’ Savings Scheme (SCSS) A/c No. 221000078 for a Deposit of Rs.6,80,000.00 on 15.07.2019 with a payment of interest on Quarterly basis.

2. Accordingly, the quarterly interest against the said deposit under SCSS was duly credited in the Savings A/c of the Complainant since September’2019 to September’2021. All on a sudden it was stopped from the quarter October to December’2021.

3. The Complainant approached to the office of the Op No.1 again and again to resolve the issue but, the Op No.1 suggested waiting for a few days to resolve the issue because of the introduction of Core Banking System (CBS) in the Department of Posts.

4. Thereafter, the Complainant paid several visits to the office of the Ops to resolve the issue but, ultimately no fruitful result came out; instead of that the Op No.1 informed about the closure of said account by the Ops.

5. Finding no any alternative, the Complainant made an appeal before the Op No.2 on 25.07.2022 for peaceful solution of the matter but, the same has been rejected subsequently on 27.07.2022.

6. Thereafter, on 08.09.2022, the Complainant sent a letter to the Secretary, Kanthi Kreta Suraksha Samity for necessary redressal of the said grievances and on the basis of such application, the Secretary, Kanthi Kreta Suraksha Samity requested the Op No.2 to settle the matter by closing the account with up-to-date payment of interest.

7. In response the Op No.2 gave a reply to the Secretary, Kanthi Kreta Suraksha Samity on 13.09.2022 that they have referred the matter to their higher authority for necessary instruction.

8. On 10.10.2022, the Kanthi Kreta Suraksha Samity again wrote an another letter to the Op No.3 with a same request as mentioned in Paragraph No.6 above but, the Op No.3 vide a letter dated: 27.10.2022 also escaped his liability by merely sending a formal official letter informing that they have instructed the Op No.2 to take necessary action towards settlement of the case.

9. In the meantime, the Op No.1 has sent a letter to the Complainant on 15.10.2022 informing that no interest is admissible in his account by asking to close the account within 30 days, otherwise the amount will be remitted to the Complainant by cheque after deduction of interest (if paid) and the postage charges from the amount at credit.

10. Thereafter, the Complainant preferred to file the instant case before this Commission as per the advice of the Ld. Secretary, Kanthi Kreta Suraksha Samity on 07.11.2022.

11. The cause of action of this case arose on and from 31.12.2021 when the Ops stopped providing interest and on 15.10.2022 when the Op No.1 sent a letter to the Complainant by informing, no interest is admissible in the account of the Complainant and also asked to close the account within 30 days.

12. The Complainant, therefore, prays for directing the Ops jointly and severally :-

1. To return the Principal Sum of Rs.6,80,000.00 in favour of the Complainant.

2. To pay the agreed Interest for the 4^th Quarter’2021, 1^st Quarter’2022, 2^nd Quarter’2022 and 3^rd Quarter’2022 amounting to Rs.58,480.00 in total in favour of the Complainant.

3. To pay the agreed Interest from the Quarter’2022 to till disposal of the instant case.

4. To pay exemplary Compensation of Rs.1,00,000.00 to the Complainant for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice along with mental harassment, pain and agony by the Ops.

5. To pay Litigation Cost of Rs.20,000.00 to the Complainant for conducting the case.

6. Any other order/orders as this Commission deed fit and proper.

13. Notice was duly served upon all the Ops but, Op No.1 and 3 preferred to see that the case be decided ex-parte against it.

14. Under the above circumstances, the Complainant has prayed for ex-parte order against the Op No.1 and 3.

15. The Op No.2 has contested the case by only filing Para wise comments along with some Annexures against the Complaint. While resisting the claim of the Complainant, the Op No.2 in its’ Para wise comments stated inter alia that this complaint is not maintainable in its present form and in law because as per G.S.R 1235 (E) dated: 03.10.2017, the minimum age for opening the SCSS A/c for Ex-Serviceman has been modified from “irrespective of the above age limit” to “on attaining the age of fifty years” in accordance with the published Gazette notification. Apart from that, the account has opened in contravention of Rules and as per GSPR 2018. If at any stage it is found that an account has been opened, or a deposit made, in contravention of the Rules, the Accounts Office shall close the account forthwith and refund the amount deposited without any interest.

16. The Complainant is a retired defense personnel whose date of birth is 08.05.1980 has opened the SCSS Account by initially depositing Rs.6,80,000.00 in SCSS A/c No. 221000078 with the Op No.1 on 15.07.2019at the age of 39 years 2 months and 8 days and hence the Complainant did not attain the age of 50 years on the date of opening of account and was inadvertently opened in contravention of POSB Rules, 1981 and G.S.R (E) 1235, dated: 03.10.2017. The irregularity in regard to opening the above SCSS A/c was not detected as the Post Office was a non CBS Branch. As a result, the periodical interest on the deposited amount was being credited in the account. Subsequently, after the migration of Core Banking Solution, the below age limit within the range of 55 to 60 years has been detected with which the word “irrespective of age limit” has been substituted with the words “on attaining the age of 50 years” to have effect from the date of publication in the official gazette.

17. As the said SCSS Account was opened irregularly in contravention of extent rule due to the Complainant did not attain the age of 50 years at the time of opening the account, the Op No.1 has sent a Notice to the Complainant on 15.10.2022 indicating the irregularities in the said account with a request to close it within 30 days from the date of issue of such notice and take the withdrawal payment due as admissible. But, the Complainant did not comply with the notice within the stipulated period and therefore, the Op No.1 closed the account with the prescribed formalities and remitted the closure value of Rs.5,52,107.00 through account payee cheque in favour of the Complainant vide Registered Post on 26.11.2022 after deducting the paid interest which the Complainant has refused to accept.

18. It is further mentioned, the Complainant has given declaration in the account opening form by signing “I/We hereby declare that I/We have clearly understood POSB General Rules 1981 and Post Office Savings Accounts Rules 1981…..”

19. Under the above circumstances, the Op No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the present case.

20. Points for determination are:

1. Is the case maintainable in its present form and in law? 
2. Is the Complainant entitled to the relief(s) as sought for?

21. Decision with reasons

1. Both the points I and II, being inter related to each other, are taken up together for discussion for sake of brevity and convenience.

2. We have carefully perused the Petition of the Complainant along with all connected papers and other documents.

22. Having regards had to the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of evidence, it is evident that there is no dispute that the Complainant is a consumer having grievances against the Ops, as such the case is maintainable in its present form and in law.

23. We have also gone through all the submitted papers and supporting documents of both the parties. On careful analysis of the same it is observed by this Commission are as follows :-

1. In the instant case, the Complainant submitted Defense Pension Documents; Projected Ledger Copy for Interest against Deposit of Rs.6,80,000.00 in SBSS A/c No.221000078, dated: 15.07.2019; Letter to the Superintendent of Post Offices, Contai Division by the Complainant on 25.07.2022; Reply letter dated: 27.07.2022 by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Contai Division regarding closure of irregularly opened SGSS Accounts; Letter to the Secretary, Kanthi Kreta Suraksha Samiti by the Complainant on 08.09.2022; Letter by the Kanthi Kreta Suraksha Samity to the Superintendent of Post Offices, Contai Division on 13.09.2022; Reply letter by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Contai Division to the Secretary, Kanthi Kreta Suraksha Samity on 13.09.2022; Letter by the Kanthi Kreta Suraksha Samity to the Post Master General, South Bengal Region on 10.10.2022; Reply letter by the Assistant Director of Postal Services – IV, South Bengal Region to the Secretary, Kanthi Kreta Suraksha Samity on 27.10.2022; Notice from the Sub Post Master, Chaulkhola S.O on 15.10.2022 to the Complainant regarding closure of irregularly opened SCSS A/c No.221000078; Intimation letter by the Secretary, Kanthi Kreta Suraksha Samity to the Superintendent of Post Offices, Contai Division on 07.11.2022; Para wise comments against the Complaint with Brief History along with few Annexures in the matter of Complainant - Vs. – Union of India & Others by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Contai Division containing Government Savings Promotion General Rules, 2018 notified in the Gazette of India, Updated Notification for SCSS Rules, 2004, Copy of Account Opened Form and SCSS Scheme – 2004 Circular etc.

2. From the above submitted documents it is carefully observed that the Complainant was misguided with wrong information for the act of the Op No.1, unfortunately which is a govt. authority and therefore,he approached several higher ranked government officials of the said Department i.e. Ops No.2 and 3 by seeking help and remedy but unfortunately he did not get any help from the said authorities. Moreover, in the Para wise comments ,brief history of the Case as well as in the submitted papers and documents, the Ops didn’t admit anywhere about its’ fault for which the Complainant ultimately suffered. If the Ops are unaware about the updated scheme of the Govt., then how they expect it from the Complainant ? The Commission thinks, it is the duty of the Ops to properly guide its’ Customers about the scheme in details before opening the account. If the permissible age limit for opening the SCSS Account is between 50 to 55 Years, then how the Op No.1 illegally opened the account at the age of 39 Years 2 Months 8 Days ? . Opening the account of a customer with maintaining all official procedure and legal formalities after proper verification is the duty of the Ops which cannot be transferred on the shoulder of the Complainant.

3. Moreover, the Ops have not suo-motu brought the irregularities in to the notice of the Complainant, rather the Op No.1 kept the Complainant in waiting to resolve the issue after introduction of Core Banking System (CBS). When the Ops received letters after letters from the Complainant as well as the Contai Kreta Suraksha Samity regarding the issue, it came to their knowledge. In the projected Ledger of SSCS A/c No.221000078, dated: 15.07.2019 which was issued by the Ops as an official document from the Postal Department (Govt. of India), is void-ab-initio because it is revealed, the Complainant is not eligible to receive any Interest because the account has been opened or deposit has been made in contravention of the rules.

4. The Op No.2 mentioned about the declaration given by the Complainant in the account opening form by signing “I/We hereby declare that I/We have clearly understood POSB General Rules 1981 and Post Office Savings Accounts Rules 1981…..”

Now the question is being a Postal Authority, if the Ops are

Quite ignorant about the latest Circular then how can they expect it from the Complainant ? After visiting the Postal Department and being satisfied, the Complainant signed the above declaration after knowing the Senior Citizen Savings Scheme – 2004 where all Armed Forces personnel retired on superannuation shall be eligible to subscribe to the scheme irrespective of age limits. But, being a service provider, it was the primary duty of the Op No.1 to explain him about the latest circular for his non eligibility and refuse him to open the SCSS Account. Rather, the Op No.1 opened the said account illegally after taking signature in the declaration which merely cannot be a ground for passing over the liabilities to the Complainant by the Ops.

5. Therefore, it  clearly transpires, there are not only elements of negligence and gross deficiency in service of the Ops but also a serious lapse in the system of the postal authority which put the Complainant to suffer a severe economic loss and injury, harassment as well as mental agony by the whimsical act and omission of the Ops.

6. Now, coming to the matter of reliefs, the Ops can’t get absolved from the mischief of negligence, harassment and deficiency in service. The Ops will be jointly and severally liable to refund the Principal Sum of Rs.6,80,000.00 (Rupees Six Lakh Eighty Thousand Only) to the Complainant within 45 days from the date of this order and a Simple Interest @8% per annum in addition to the said amount from the date of such deposit i.e. 15.07.2019  till actual payment, after deducting there from Interest which are already paid. The Ops will also be jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.10,000.00 towards Compensation and Rs.5,000.00 as Litigation Costs to the Complainant within 45 days from the date of this order.

24. Accordingly, both the points are decided in favour of the Complainant.

25. Thus, the complaint case succeeds.

Hence, it is

          O R D E R E D

That the CC-155 of 2022 be and the same is allowed on contest against the Op No.2 and ex-parte against the Op No.1 and 3.

The Ops, who are jointly and severally liable, hereby directed to refund the Principal Sum of Rs.6,80,000.00 (Rupees Six Lakh Eighty Thousand Only) along with  Simple Interest @8% per annum on the said amount from the date of deposit i.e. 15.07.2019 till actual payment after deducting there from Interest which are already paid if any to the Complainant within 45 days from the date of this order.

The Ops, who are jointly and severally liable are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000.00 towards Compensation and Rs.5,000.00 as Litigation Costs to the Complainant within 45 days from the date of this order.

Let a copy of this judgment be provided to the parties free of costs.       

The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

File be consigned to record section along with a copy of this   judgment.