Before the District Forum: Kurnool
Present: Sri K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra reddy, B. Com., LL.B., Member
Monday the 18th day of October, 2004
C.D.No.156/2003
P. Kotilingam,
S/o. P.Yellamandaiah,
H.No.I/1305,
H.B.S.Colony, III Road,
Yemmiganur, Kurnool Dist. . . . Complainant represented by his
Counsel Sri D.Srinivasulu
-Vs-
1. The Sub Postmaster,
Department of Indian Posts,
Yemmiganur, Kurnool Dist.
2. The Postmaster,
Department of India Posts,
Adoni, Kurnool Dist. . . . Opposite party No.1&2 represented
By his counsel Sri M.D.V.Jogaiah Sarma.
O R D E R
(As per Smt C.Preethi, Hon’ble Lady Member)
1. This CD complaint of the complainant is field under section 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 seeking a direction on the opposite parties to refund the balance of Rs.44,100/- with accrued interest for the years 2001-2002, 2002-2003 and upto realization, Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony Rs.1,000/- as costs of the case and any such other relief or relief which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The gist of the complaint is that the complainant deposited Rs.10,000/- on 22.2.1997 under NSS, 1992 bearing No. 50499 and a pass book bearing the same number was issued by the opposite parties, on 14.3.1998 the balance stood at Rs. 44,100/-, and the same was entered in the pass book. The opposite parties calculated interest and credited to the complainant’s account for the years 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 to Rs.16,599/- and the complainant with drawn the said interest from his account, and further interest was not paid by the opposite parties. On approach by the complainant the opposite parties did not pay the due interest for the reasons best known to them. Thereafter the complainant addressed letters dt 30.4.2003 and 2.6.2003 requesting to pay the interest. The opposite parties replied dt 7.5.2003 and 6.6.2003 stating that the interest paid earlier amounting to Rs.16, 599/- would be recovered from the credit balance of the complainant and no further interest will be paid to him. Hence, alleges deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties in not paying interest on the said amount.
3. In support of his case the complainant relied on the following documents Viz (1) pass book bearing No.50499, (2) letter dated 30.4.2003 addressed by the complainant to the Post Master, Adoni, (3) Letter date 7.5.2003 addressed by the Post Master Adoni through S.P.M, Yemmiganur, to the complainant (4) Letter dated 2.6.2003 addressed by the complainant to opposite party No.1 &2 (5) Post acknowledgement of opposite party No.1 for receipt of Ex A.4 (6) Postal acknowledgement of opposite party No.2 for receipt of Ex A.4 (7) letter addressed by opposite party No.2 to the complainant and (8) Pamphlet regarding NSS, 1992, besides to a sworn affidavit iteration of its complaint averments and the above documents are marked as Ex A.1 to Ex A.8 for its appreciation in this case.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant, the opposite parties appeared through their standing counsel and contested the case. The opposite party No.1 filed its written version and opposite party No.2 adopted the written version of opposite party No.1 and denies any of its liability to the claim of the complainant.
5. The written version of the opposite parties alleges that the complainant opened NSS 1992 account bearing No 50499 on 22.2.1997 with initial payment of Rs.10,000/- and further deposited Rs.17,000/- on 15.12.1997, 15,000/- on 3.1.1998, 2,000/- on 24.1.1998 and Rs.100/- on 14.3.1998. Thus the complainant made a total deposit of Rs.44.100/-. It further alleges that the complainant knowingly violated the NSS Rules 1987, Rule 5 (3) of the Rules prescribes that there shall be not more than one deposit every month and the total deposits in a year do not exceed Rs.20,000/- and the year commencing from 1st April every year. In the light of above said Rule the complainant deposits exceed the prescribed limit, which is in violation of the NSS Rules,1987.
6. It further submits that the audit officer for the department notice the said violation of Rules by the complainant and accordingly Rs.16, 599/- was withdrawn form the complainants deposit of Rs. 44,100/- and the remaining balance of Rs. 37,014/- was sent to complainant but the complainant refused to accept it and addressed letters Dt 30.4.2003 and 2.6.2003 and the opposite parties suitably replied dt 7.5.2003 and 10.6.2003. As the complainant knowingly and intentionally violated Rules of NSS there arises no deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties and seeks for the dismissal of complaint with costs.
7. In substantiation of its case the opposite parties filed sworn affidavit of opposite party No.1 in support of their written version and did not file any documents.
8. Hence the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is remaining entitled alleging deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties:-
9. It is the case of the complainant that he deposited on different dates to the tune of Rs.44,100/- by opening NSS 1992 account bearing No. 50499 and he gas drawn periodical interest on the said account to the tune of Rs.16,599/- upto 2001, the opposite parties thereafter stopped paying interest from 2002 on wards. On approach the opposite parties stated that the account opened by the complainant is in violation of NSS Rules of 1987, and deducted Rs.16, 599/- the interest already paid on the above deposit on the pretext that the complainant is not entitle to the said interest as his account is opened exceeding limits prescribed under Rule 5 (3) and closed the account after deducting the already paid interest. But this plea of the opposite parties cannot be accepted as the person who received the deposits should take due care by diligence, where certain limits are prescribed before accepting the deposits and when it is not done the said act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service for the said mistake of the opposite parties the complainant cannot be founded fault with and suffer, especially, when the opposite parties being in advantage position of having the principle amount of the deposit with it, leaving the complainant with no alternative except to abide to the recovery of alleged excess amount which accompany on the mistake committed by the opposite parties collecting deposits exceeding the limits. Hence the Postal Department cannot demand for the recovery of so called illegally withdrawn amount of Rs.16, 599/- already paid towards interest to the complainant.
10. The complainant further relies on the following decisions:
(1) Department of Post and Telegraph Vs Dr R.C. Saxena, reported in 1997 (1) C.PR page 74 (NC), where in it was held that looking into the NSS scheme, it could be logically presumed that Rule 4 of the scheme was only meant for the administrative convenience of the department and not to bar the payment of interest on an account opened by a depositor in ignorance of this Rule.
(2) In Post Master, Khurda vs Mahaveer Prasad Saha, reported in 2002 (3) CPR page 119, it was held that even if a person deposited total amount excess of prescribed limit, postal authorities cannot demand for recovery of excess amount paid towards interest.
- K.M.C Singh Vs Senior Post Master, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi, reported in 2003 (1) CPJ page 167 (NC), where in it was held that when postal department opened account in violation of Post Office Rules, 1987, the Post Office is at deficiency of service as employees agent did not inform the complainant about limit imposed under the Rules and hence the department is liable to pay interest.
11. In light of the rational of the above decisions and in totality of full consideration of facts and following the aforesaid National Commission decision, in our consider view the opposite parties are liable to refund the deposit amount with interest to the complainant for the simple fact of the opposite parties in accepting the deposits of the complainant though excess of the prescribed limit, the fact which is better known to the opposite parties than the complainant. Hence the complainant is certainly remaining entitled to the relief sought in the complaint.
12. Therefore, in the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to refund Rs.44, 100/- with 9% interest per annum from 28.4.2001till the date of realization and as the opposite parties had driven the complainant to seek redressal in this Forum Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs.1, 000/- as costs and the opposite parties are granted one month time from the date of receipt of this order for compliance.
Dictated to the Stenographer typed to the Dictation corrected by us pronounced in the Open Court this the 18th day of October, 2004.
Sd/-
Sd/- PRESIDENT sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER
