BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 14th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
SRI.RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT.SUNITA C. BAGEWADI, MEMBER
Appeals No.1554/2019 TO 1557/2019
1. Appeal No.1554/2019
Mr.Venkatraman Santappa Nayak,
S/o Santappa Venkatraman Nayak,
Aged about 69 years,
Residing at Bangale house,
Nellekeri, Kumta-581343
...Appellant/s
2. Appeal No.1555/2019
Mr.Sridhar Santappa Nayak,
S/o Santappa Venkatraman Nayak,
Aged about 53 years,
Residing at Bangale house,
Nellekeri, Kumta-581343
3. Appeal No.1556/2019
Late Vaikunth Santappa Nayak,
Since Deceased,
Represented by his legal heir
Smt.Bharati,
W/o Late Vaikunth Santappa Nayak,
Aged about 67 years,
Residing at Bangale house,
Nellekeri, Kumta-581343
4. Appeal No.1557/2019
Mr.Govind Santappa Nayak,
S/o Santappa Venkatraman Nayak,
Aged about 71 years, ...Appellant/s
Residing at Bangale house,
Nellekeri, Kumta-581343
(By Sri.Mahabaleswara.G.C, Advocate)
-V/s-
1. Appeal Nos.1554/2019 to 1557/2019
- Superintendent of Post,
Office of the Superintendent of Pos,
MG Road, Karwar
…Respondent/s
- Post Master,
Head post office,
Nellikeri Kumta
(Respondent is common in all the appeals)
(By Sri.D.Basavaraja, Advocate)
C O M M O N O R D E R
BY SMT.SUNITA C. BAGEWADI, MEMBER
The Appellants/Complainants being aggrieved by the common order dated 12-07-2019 passed by the District Consumer Commission, Uttar Kannada at Karwar in Complaint Nos.64/2018 to 67/2018 respectively.
2. The Appellants are different and Respondents are the same in all these appeals. The facts involved in these appeals are one and the same. Hence, these appeals are taken up together and are being disposed of by a common order.
3. The brief facts of the complaints are that the complainants opened the PPF Account with OP No.2 Post Office on 16.O2.2000 and said accounts were HUF accounts and the complainants used to deposit amount in the said account every year without fai1. In April-2018 the complainants approached the OP No.2 Post Master, Kumta and requested to close the said PPF accounts and to make payment of the entire amount with interest and accordingly the OP No.2 closed the said PPF accounts and paid the amount to the complainants. The complainants verified the Pass book and found that as per the entry in the pass book and found that the Opposite Party No.2 has i1lega1ly deducted the amount from the PPF Account of the complainants. The Opposite Party No.2 has not held any enquiry nor issued any notice to the complainants before deducting the said amount. In this regard, the complainants issued letters to Opposite Party No.2 and the Opposite Party No.2 issued a reply stating that due to fault in their software and change of computer software and negligence of their officials, excess interest was paid and the same is recovered while making the payment. This act of the Opposite Parties amounts to deficiency of service, hence these complaints.
4. After service of the notice, the Opposite Parties appeared through counsel and filed written version admitting that the complainants opened PPF Account at post office Kumta, but the total amount deposited with interest are denied as false. The Opposite Parties further contended that, the PPF Accounts opened in the name of HUF prior to 13.05.2005 cannot be further extended after maturity and no further deposits can be accepted in such accounts after maturity and that the depositors had to approach the 2nd Opposite Party for closure of accounts and also contended that as per request of the complainants, the Opposite Party No.2 closed the respective accounts and paid fu1l payment with interest on 11.06.2018. The excess interest amounts noted in the passbooks are deducted. Hence, there is no any illegal deduction or deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties.
5. After trial, the District Consumer Commission, Uttar Kannada at Karwar has dismissed the complaints.
6. Being aggrieved by the said order, the complainants filed these appeals before this Commission.
7. Heard from the respondent. Appellants filed notes of arguments.
8. Perused the appeals memo and the order passed by the District Consumer Commission, we noticed that it is not in dispute that, the appellants have opened the PPF accounts in the name of HUF at Post Office, Kumata and every year the appellants deposited the amount without fail. It is also not in dispute that, the accounts were closed on 11.6.2018 on the request of the appellants. The allegation of the appellant is that, the respondents have wrongly deducted the interest amount and has paid less amounts to the appellants.
9. Per-contra, the respondents contended that there are wrong entries in the pass book and excess interest noted in the pass books are deducted and maturity amount as on 16.2.2015 were paid to the appellants as per the government notification.
10. Perused the order passed by the District Commission, we noticed that, it is an evident that, as per the DoP order No.32-01/2010-SB dated 13.12.2010, PPF accounts opened in the name of HUF prior to 13.5.2005 cannot be extended after maturity and no further deposits can be accepted in such accounts after maturity. The period of accounts opened by the appellants were only for 15 years prior to 13.5.2005 and as per the Government Notification, the PPF accounts opened by the appellants matured on 16.2.2015 and there was no scope for extension of deposits after maturity. It is also evident that the audit report of Kumata Head office shows that the PPF accounts of the appellants continue after maturity also and credited to the interim interest. Hence the respondents have reversed the entries because acceptance of deposit and credited interest is against the order of the Central Government.
11. The District Commission relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (1998) 9 SCC 706 in case of Postmaster, Dargamitta HPO -v/s- Raja Prameelamma (Ms) dated 1.5.1995 and another decision of the Hon’ble State Commission, Maharashtra Mumbai in first Appeal No.A/10/675 dated 15.10.2010 in case of State Bank of India –v/s- Sri.Totaram Bhajraj Lulla and passed the judgments which are just and proper, because we do not find any deficiency of service on the part of the respondent. If they followed the Government Notifications and if the notification was directive, the respondents were legally bound to comply with this.
12. Hence considering the facts and discussion made here, we are of the opinion that, the order passed by the District Commission is just and proper. No interference is required. Hence, we proceed to pass the following;
O R D E R
The Appeal Nos.1554/2019 to 1557/2019 are dismissed.
Keep the original of this order in Appeal No.1554/2019 and copies thereof in connected files.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as Concerned District Commission.
SMT.SUNITA C.BAGEWADI SRI.RAVI SHANKAR
(Lady Member) (Judicial Member)
