BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 28^TH DAY OF JUNE 2024

ORDER

SMT.M.SHOBHA, PRESIDENT

1. The complaint has been filed under Section 35 of C.P.Act (hereinafter referred as an Act) against the OP for compensation of Rs.10,12,683/-.

2. The case set up by the complainant in brief is as under:-

The first complainant is the daughter and the second complainant is the mother and they have filed this complaint through their SPA holder.  It is the contention taken by the complainant that both have deposited Rs.70 lakhs and Rs.51 lakhs respectively in the OP1 post office in time deposit for a period of five years @ 6.7% p.a.interst.  It is the case of the first complainant that the second complainant being her mother the senior citizen was eligible for higher rate of interest upto 15 lakhs.  Unfortunately no one in the post office have informed them about this benefit and they had deposited the entire amount of Rs.51 lakhs for an interest of 6.7% for five years. They have deposited the aforesaid amount on 21.01.2021 and 20.01.2021.  They have received a sum of Rs.4,81,416/- on the time deposit of Rs.70 lakhs and Rs.3,50,881/- on Rs.51 lakhs on 21.01.2022 and 20.01.2022 towards the interest for the first year.

3. It is further contention of the complainant that while depositing the amount they have asked the concerned staff about the benefits during any emergency and they have informed them that the complainants can obtain loan on the said TD in any Nationalized Bank by pledging the same.  They were also informed the complainant that the money deposited in the post office is guaranteed and safe. Believing this they have deposited the entire money they have received from the property they have sold in 2016 after completing all the formalities required for IT.
4. It is further case of the complainants that they wanted loan on the said deposit to take care of renovation of their house. They have approached the Union Bank of India where they have SB account and the bank authorities have informed them that no loan can be given on the time deposit of the post office.  The complainant upset with this. They have enquired in the post office and they confirmed that their TD is not eligible for any loan from any authenticated source. The TD is only good for guarantee and safety and not good in case of emergency. In the mean time, their banks have also informed the complainant that the rate of interest is 7.0% p.a., for general public and 7.5% p.a., for senior citizen.  The bank authorities have also gave an option to consider the entire sum of Rs.1.21 crore for an interest of 7.5% making the total amount as a joint deposit in the name of second complainant. Hence the complainants decided to close the TD in the OP post office for the reason that to deposit the amount in UBI to avail the benefit of 7.5% on the entire amount of 1.21 crores and further to avail the loan on the deposit during emergency.
5. For the aforesaid reasons the complainants have approached the OP1 post office on 21.10.2022 for closure of the TD.  They have enquired at the counter staff namely Ms.Shashikala about the formalities and charges for closure of TD and she informed them that it will be treated as premature closure of TD. She further informed the complainant after discussing with other colleagues that the charges will be 1.5% on the principle amount.  The complainant further enquired about the charges for pre closure and she again repeated the same.  The complainant has calculated the charges as per the information given by the OP staff and as per her calculation Rs.1,81,500/- which is 1.5% on the principle amount of Rs.1,21 crores. She has also further calculated other benefits as she has got a ready reckoner  after calculation the OP1 staff informed the figures in the bank challan as the final proceedings for the preclosure charges for TD after 1.9 months was Rs.69,77,318/- and Rs.50,83,476/- respectively on the TD account of Rs.70 lakhs and Rs.51 lakhs.  Even the principle amount of Rs.70 lakhs and Rs.50 lakhs were not fully paid.  The complainants not satisfied with the amount calculated have informed the OP1 staff and also APM of the post office.
6. The main grievance of the complainant is that the final amount credited in their SB account by the OP1 was Rs.69,77,318/- for Rs.70 lakhs less by Rs.22,682/- and in the second complainant’s SB account was Rs.50,83,476/- against the principle amount of Rs.51 lakhs less by Rs.16,524/-.  Complainants have immediately approached the OP1 staff namely Shashikala and Papanna and enquired about the other charges supposed to be paid as per their statement before giving their consent to proceed for preclosure charges that it was 1.5% on the principle and subsequent assurance that the remaining amount would be credited in SB account. The above staff became totally silent and they have argued that they have done as per the TD rules. They confirmed that the complainants are not going to get any amount apart from whatever has been shown in the pass book.
7. Aggrieved by the said calculations the complainants have also approached the sub post master of the OP1 and explained him about the happenings in the post office and requested him to intervene and rectify the mistake done by their staff and restore the TD. But the Sub post master washed off his hands telling that something could have been done before verification by the APM and it was too late for him to do anything.  The complainants have understood that they were cheated by the postal staff.  Again they have approached the OP1 staff after two hours and insisted for the details of the account closure as per the TD rules.  The OP1 staff took another 45 minutes to give the details. The OP staff further informed the complainant across the counter that 1.5% on the principle amount was not done but they had a totally different calculation as per TD rules which resulted in the loss Rs.6,47,231/-.
8. After that the complainants have raised the complaint before OP2 to OP4 but none of them have interfered with the calculation made by their staff and they have confirmed the same. The complainants also approached the RBI Ombudsmen by lodging a complaint and after promptly acknowledged their complaint the Ombudsmen have sent a reply through mail that this case does not come under their perview and gave an option to the complainants to approach any other forum/court/legal authorities in accordance with law for redressal of their grievance. The complainants have also sent a mail to Dakadalath to address their grievances to mail on 16.03.2023. They have also lodged their complaint in writing to OP4 with repeated correspondence, they came to know that OP4 sent a mail to OP3 to initiate one more enquiry in this regard.  After that the complainants have received a letter that the postal authorities have ordered an impartial enquiry for redressal of the grievances to SSPO with a request and informing the complainant to participate in the enquiry whenever they called. Again they have sent a letter stating that the enquiry was conducted by Mr.Manjunath at OP1 premises stating that they have promptly accepted their failure of their staff of OP1 and also mentioned that action will be taken against the APM, but they have denied to pay any compensation to the loss incurred by the complainants because of their staff failure to explain for no fault of this complainant.
9. It is further grievance of the complainant that this is a very clear case of the negligence on the part of the OP1 staff and dereliction of their duty, inadequate knowledge on the subject unfriendly and rude behavior of the staff and misleading the depositor resulting in the loss of huge sum of money.  The complainants were under the impression that the staff of the OP are more knowledgeable on the procedures and are updated to the last minute and the complainants were sure that they will not mislead.  As per the correspondence from the office of the OP2 and 4 they have mentioned that the TD rules are published in their website and these complainants would have referred to them before applying for pre closure. 
10. The complainants further stated that they did not refer to the website while depositing the sum of Rs.1.21 crores and ignored to do the same for preclosure also and these complainants are lack in their commonsense.
11. It is further grievance of the complainants that if they are referred the OPs website the complainants would not have dared to go to the post office along with the crippled mother of 75 years the complainant 2 and made her to sit for 2½ hours in the post office and loose the money.  If the complainants were given the proper guidelines they would not have applied for the preclosure and they would have got an interest of Rs.8,31,297/- on 21.01.2023. They feel now that it was worth continuing with the TD in the post office rather than applying for pre closure.  This is a clear case of dereliction of duty, negligence of services and fail to address the grievances of the complainant in all the levels by the OP. Hence they have filed this complaint.
12. In response to the notice, OPs appeared and files version. The case of the OP is that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and liable to be dismissed. They have admitted about the TD opened by the complainants for five years by depositing an amount of Rs.71 lakhs and Rs.51 lakhs at OP1 post office on 20.01.2021 and 21.01.2021 for a period of five years.
13. It is the case of the OP that it is clear from the terms and conditions that if the parties kept TD for five years, then only they get 6.7% interest and it was explained to the complainant at the time of opening the accounts. The declaration has been clearly signed by the customers at the time of opening the account. The pass book issued at the time of opening the account contained the general instructions to the account holder wherein it is mentioned that “salient features of National Savings Scheme/Small savings scheme is available at their website.”
14. The OP has further admitted that the complainants have approached for preclosure at the counter of the OP1 and informed that there would be deduction on the principle amount. The complainant was also explained about the deduction of amount on premature closure of account by the counter staff. The details of which also available in website. Later the complainant collected required papers and submitted for final closure of the amount in which they have clearly acknowledged the amount. The deductions were clearly mentioned on the closure form and the complainant has signed it after verifying the same.  After closing the account the closure amount was credited to the complainants SB account and the closure of the account was done as per the prevailing rules with respect to premature closure of five years closure account. Only after closure of the above TD accounts the complainants have alleged about the loss of interest.
15. It is the specific contention taken by the OPs that as per rule 102(3)(ii) of POSB (CBS) manual corrected upto 31.12.2021 it is very clear that “2/3/5 years TD accounts prematurely closed after 1 years, interest shall be calculated at 2% less than the TD interest rate for completed years and for part period less than a year, PO savings interest rates will be applicable.”  So as per the prevailing rules the interest is paid at the interest rate which shall be less by 2% than the rate specified for a deposit of money.  The said rule is binding on the complainants and now without any legal basis they have questioned the same.  This rule is bound to all the TD depositors preclosures. Hence the question of the deficit of service from this OP does not arise.
16. It is further contention taken by the OP that if the complainant has raised any strict objection before the closure at any point of time the closure could not have been happened by the OP1 staff.  It is also clear from the CCTV footage that the husband of the first complainant met the APM /supervisor only to speed up the verification.  It is clear from CCTV footage that there are no such conversation between the complainant and counter staff of OP1 regarding the closure transaction that took place.  It is the bounden duty of the complainant to know about the transaction about which he is doing with the post office and nobody has prevented the complainant from knowing the rules and regulations of the transaction he is doing in the post office. An unbiased enquiry was taken on the basis of the complaint letters received by the complainant alleging about the loss of interest and the outcome of the enquiry has been communicated to the complainants and informed that the closure has been made as per the procedures.  The OPs have further denied the allegations made by the complainants that the OP staff did not bother to explain about the TD rules and took their own decision to complete the formalities without taking their written consent on the trial sheet and details of the account closure.
17. It is also the case of the OP that the compensation claimed Rs.10,12,683/- is without any basis.  It is the public policy and OPs have followed the rules and regulations of the department of posts.  If one person gets the benefit it affects the whole country and the public money will be lost and further many cases will be repeated in future. Without any amendment of law by Ministry of Finance it is not possible to the OPs to pay the interest as claimed by the complainants since the OP department has been working as agency on behalf of ministry of finance. This OP is a government organization bounded by the rules and regulations of the department. There is no cause of action arose for the complainant to file this complaint and the alleged cause of action is false and there is no such incident happened as alleged by the complainant.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP. the complainant is not entitle for any relief and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
18. The complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and relies on 20 documents.  Affidavit evidence of official of OP has been filed and OP relies on 15 documents.
19. Heard the arguments of advocate for both parties.  Perused the written arguments filed by the OP.
20. The following points arise for our consideration as are:-

1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency of service on the part of OP?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to relief mentioned in the complaint?
3. What order?

21. Our answers to the above points are as under:

Point No.1:  In the Negative

Point No.2: In the Negative

Point No.3: As per final orders

REASONS

22. Point No.1 AND 2: These two points are inter related and hence they have taken for common discussion.  We have perused the allegations made in the complaint, version, affidavit evidence of both the parties, written arguments and documents.
23. In order to prove their contentions SPA holder of the complainants have filed their affidavit evidence and relied on 20 documents. Ex.P1 is the CD pass book of complainant No.1, Ex.P2 is the SB pass book of complainant 1, Ex.P3 and P4 are the TD and SB pass book of complainant No.2, Ex.P5 is the ready reconner in handwriting, Ex.P6 is the details of account closure, Ex.P7 to 10, 12, 13, 16 and 17 are the letter correspondences, Ex.P11 is the mail to Dokadalath, Ex.P14 is the printout of mail from Dokadalath, Ex.P15 is the reply to Dokadalath, Ex.P19 is the pendrive, Ex.P20 is the photos.  On the other hand in order to prove their contention APM of the OP1 Sri.Papanna has filed his affidavit evidence and relied on 15 documents, Ex.R1 is the copy of the post office savings account rulings, Ex.P2 and 3 are the depart ledger copy of two complainants, Ex.P4 is the copy of rule-91(3), Ex.R5 and 6 are the two deposit form, Ex.R7 and 8 are copy of two calculation sheet, Ex.R9 and 10 are the copy of the premature account closure form, Ex.R11 and 12 are the copy of the payslip, Ex.R13 & 14 are the copies of interest calculation.
24. It is clear from the pleadings and documents placed before this commission that the complainants are claimed compensation of Rs.10,12,683/- from the OP alleging deficiency of service on the part of the OP.
25. It is also undisputed fact that the complainants are the daughter and mother and they have deposited Rs.70 lakhs and 51 lakhs respectively under time deposit in the OP1 post office for a period of five years.  The complainants have also received one year interest as per the TD scheme terms and conditions. After that the complainants withdraw the amount before the TD period.  
26. The main grievance of the complainants that they would not have approached the OP for preclosure if they have gone through the rules and regulations of the OP regarding preclosure of the time deposit and if the OP staff have clearly informed them about the loss they are going to sustain in case of preclosure of the TD.
27. Admittedly the complainants have received the final amount of Rs.69,77,476/- against the principal amount of Rs.70 lakhs less by 22,682/- and the second complainants final amount was Rs.50,83,476/- against the principle amount of Rs.51 lakhs less by Rs.16,524/-.  If the OP staff would have informed the complainants about the TD rules and told them that there would be 1.5% charges on the principle across the counter but the calculation as per the TD rules which resulted in loss of Rs.6,08,025/- towards the interest payable for nine months from 21.01.2022 to 21.10.2022 and Rs.39,206/- towards the amount deducted in the principle amount which amounted to Rs.6,47,231/-. The postal staff did not bother to explain the complainant about the TD rules and not even told them to refer their website but took their own decision to complete the formalities without taking the written consent of the complainants on the trial sheet and details of account closure. If the complainants have checked their website they would not have given their consent for premature closure of the TD.  Due to dereliction of duties, inadequate knowledge on the subject, unfriendly and rude behavior of the staff of the OP and misleading the depositor and negligence of the OP staff resulted in the loss of huge sum of money of the complainant and these OPs are liable to make good the loss.
28.  On the other hand, the main contention taken by the OP is that the complainants have made the TD for a period of five years. They have received the first year interest rate as per TD scheme terms and conditions (5 years) then the complainant withdraw the amount before the TD period. Hence the interest amount will be automatically reduced and the interest paid in the first year also reduced as per the terms and conditions of the TD. The interest amount reduced because the complainants withdraw the amount during the second year. Hence the interest amount was reduced and the same is adjusted and paid the remaining balance amount to the complainant.  The complainant is entitled for the interest as per the TD ratio yearwise if TD amount is fixed in the five years then only term deposit interest will applicable otherwise interest will be calculated as per post office savings bank rulings in post office term deposit account(TD) rules (e)(iii) clearly stated that (iii).  If 2/3/5 year TD account prematurely closed after 1 years, interest shall be calculated 2% less than of TD interest rate (i.e., 1/2/3 years) for completed years and for part period less than a year, PO savings interest rates will be applicable.”  The complainant is claiming the interest @ TD interest yearwise. Hence the complainant is not entitle for the interest since the OPs have calculated the interest as per the rules of the department.
29. The OP has relied on Post office savings bank rulings in post office term deposit account TD rule (e) premature closure of account, it is clear from the said provision that;

1. No deposit shall be withdrawn before the expiry of six months from the date of deposit.
2. If TD account closed after 6 months but before 1 years, PO savings account interest rate will be applicable.
3. If 2/3/5 year TD account prematurely closed after 1 year, interest shall be calculated 2% less than of TD interest rate (i.e., 1/2/3 years) for completed years and for part period less than a year, PO savings interest rates will be applicable.
4. TD account can be closed prematurely by submitting prescribed application from with pass book at concerned post office.

30. When the complainant approached the OP1 post office, they have informed the complainant that there would be deduction on the principle amount and further explained about the deduction of the amount on PMC by the staff of the OP1 and the details are also available on the website. Later the complainants have collected required papers and submitted for final closure form. At that time the complainants being the account holders have not raised any objection. The complainants have raised the objection only after closure of the time deposit. As per the department rules it is clear in (c)(iii) if 2/3/5 years TD account prematurely closed after one year interest shall be calculated 2% less than of TD interest rate i.e., years for completed years and for part period less than PO savings interest rate will be applicable. As per the rules the OPs have deducted the interest of the TD amount. The complainants have deposited the amount on 20.01.2021 and premature closed on 21.10.2023 after one year. The complainant received interest amount for one year Rs.4,80,916/- as per five year TD interest rate and the said amount was disbursed to the complainant’s account on 21.01.2022. The complainant gave application for premature closure of account on 21.10,.2022. Hence after deduction as per the post office savings account (SB) interest payable rates this OP1 has calculated the SB interest for a period of nine months @ 4% and it amounts to Rs.2,10,000/-. As per the rules department have to pay totally for one year nine months which amounts to Rs.4,58,234/-. The department already disbursed an amount of Rs.4,80,916/-. Hence the department less the amount from Rs.480,916/- actual payable interest of Rs.4,58,234/- and department paid more interest amount of Rs.22,682/-, the said amount was deducted from the TD account out of Rs.70 lakhs – 22,682/- and it amounts to Rs.69,77,318/-as per TD rulings.  After premature closure of account the OP disbursed an amount of Rs.69,77,318/- to the complainant account and so also they have deducted Rs.16,525/- from the term deposit of Rs.51 lakhs and paid the remaining amount of Rs.50,83,476/-. In addition to this the OP have also followed the procedure as per rule 100(a) of POSB(CBS) manual corrected upto 31.12.2021 under procedure for closure of TD account.  After trial closure the OP has informed the complainant regarding the rules of premature closure and the complainants satisfied with the same and then only they have signed the required forms and only after that the OPs have closed the TD account of the complainants.
31. Even though the complainants have raised complaints before the OP2 to 4 and also before the RBI Ombudsman and Dakadalath and all the authorities have held that the OP1 staff have followed all the procedures before premature closure of TD account. Even the OP authorities have conducted departmental enquiry against the OP1 staff and they have submitted report that there is no fault committed by their staff and they have followed all the procedure before closure of the TD of the complainant.
32. It is clear from the very documents and evidence of both the parties that the OPs staff have followed all the rules and regulations and they have calculated the amount. The complainants have raised the objection only after final closure of the premature TD account.  If the complainants have raised their objection before closure of the TD the OP staff would not have closed the TD.  After closure of the TD they cannot help the complainants and they cannot pay the excess amount of interest claimed by the complainant against their rules and regulations.  Admittedly it is the public policy and the OPs have to follow the rules and regulations of the department. The OP authorities cannot pay the interest claimed by the complainant against the rules and regulations. There is no any amendment of law by Ministry of Finance and hence it is not possible for the OP authorities to pay the interest amount claimed by the complainant.  The OP is a government department and working as an agency of the Ministry of Finance and they are bound by the rules and regulations of the department. When the complainants were investing huge amount of 1.21 crores it is their duty to know all the rules and regulations for preclosure and they would have verified the website of the OPs or they would have enquire with the staff of the OP before the preclosure of the TD. Without taking proper assistance and care in preclosure of the TD account the complainants have given consent for preclosure. Under these circumstances there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP.  it is the bounden duty of the complainant to know about the transaction about which they are doing with the post office and nobody have prevented the complainants from knowing the rules and regulations of the transaction they are doing with the OP.  When the complainants themselves have not taken sufficient care in premature release of their TD amount they cannot allege the OP for deficiency of service or negligence on their part. Hence the complainants have failed to establish the deficiency of service on the part of the OP. Hence the complainants are not entitled for relief.  Hence we answer point No.1 and point No.2 in the Negative.
33. Point No.3:- In view the discussion referred above we proceed to pass the following;

O R D E R

1. The complaint is Dismissed. No costs.
2. Furnish the copy of this order and return the extra pleadings and documents to the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 28^TH day of JUNE 2024)

Documents produced by the Complainant-P.W.1 are as follows:

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party – R.W.1;