Ld. Advocate(s)
For Complainant: Pitha Mondal
For OP/OPs : none
Date of filing of the case :06.08.2019
Date of Disposal of the case :15.06.2023
Final Order / Judgment dtd.15.06.2023
Complainant above name filed the present complaint u/s 12 of the C.P.Act2019 against the OPs praying for direction upon the OP to pay Rs.34,901/- to the complainant, compensation amounting of Rs. 50,000/- for harassment, mental pain and agony of the complainant.
She alleged in the petition that on 26.02.2013 she opened one MIS Account before the OP no. 2 with the join name of her son namely Anupam Banerjee vide Account no. 8720970463 amounting to Rs. 1,05,000/-.
She opened another MIS Account on 07.12.2017 with the joint name of her husband Arun Kumar Banerjee before the OP no. 2 vide account no. 3848744044 amounting to Rs. 8,46,000/-.
When first account was matured then complainant went before OP for maturity value but OP refused to the give payment on the reason that complainant exceeded limited of deposit of MIS scheme and matter was informed by OP no. 2 verbally on 23.10.2018.
Complainant gave letter to OP no. 1 and OP no. 2 and categorically mentioned that such mistake was caused by herself unwillingly and she made a request to OP no. 1 to allow her to withdraw the maturity amount.
OP no. 1 give one reply on 07.01.2019 wherein complainant was directed to settle discrepancies as per provision of rule 167 (7) of POSB manual on 14.01.2019.
Complainant compelled to go for premature withdrawal of both account and the Postal Authority paid the sum of Rs. 8,46,000/- as MIS closer value and deducted Rs.68,741/- as interest paid and gave Rs.33,840/- as interest as per SB interest.
She further stated that complainant sustained lose of Rs.34, 941/- hence this case.
As per order no. 24 dtd. 22.03.2023 case is running ex-parte against OP no. 1 and 2.
TRIAL
During trial complainant filed following documents:-
- Letter issued by OP no. 1 dtd. 07.01.2019 in favour of the complainant.
- Letter issued by Assistant Director Consumer Affairs, FBP dtd. 06.08.2018.
BNA
Complainant files BNA.
Decision with Reasons
We have carefully gone though the petition of complaint, affidavit-in-chief filed by the complainant, documents filed by the complainant and BNA filed by the complainant.
We have carefully considered.
On perusal of petition of complainant we find that complainant opened one MIS vide no. 8720970463 dtd. 26.02.2013 in the joint name of complainant and her son Anupam Banerjee amounting to Rs. 1,05,000/-.So it is clear before us that said investment be treated as the investment of complainant amounting to Rs. 52,500/- and investment of Anupam Banerjee amounting to Rs.32,500/-.
On perusal of the petition of complaint we also find that complainant opened another MIS account vide no. 3848744844 in the name of herself and her husband Arun Kumar Banerjee amounting to Rs. 8,46,000/-.
So it is clear before us that said investment be treated as investment of complainant amounting to Rs. 4,23,000/- and the investment of Rs. Arun Kumar Banerjee amounting to Rs. 4,23,000/-.
Accordingly, we find that complainant made total investment amounting to Rs. 4,75,500/- in her name in two MIS Schemes.
We also find that investment has made in the name of Anupam Banerjee amounting to Rs. 52,500/- . We also find that investment has made in the name of Arum Kumar Baneerjee amounting t o Rs. 4,23,000/-.
As per rule of Postal Authority a person has an authority to invest till 31.03.2023 maximum amount of Rs.4, 50,000/- in MIS Scheme.
Accordingly, we find that complainant violated the said rule.
During hearing Ld. Adv. for the complainant argued that it is latches on the part of the OP no. 1 and 2 because nowadays entire work of Post Office has been computerized, so they knew when complainant invested Rs. 8,46,000/-.
Said argument of Ld. Adv. for the complainant is not acceptable because it is responsibility of both sides.
There is no explanation on behalf of the complainant as to why she invested Rs.4,75,500/- where maximum limit of investment was Rs.4,50,000/- .
On perusal of letter of complaint dtd. 23.10.2018 (Xerox) we find that complainant stated in the said letter that due to mistake and negligence she invested the aforesaid sum which has exceeded the limit.
OP no. 1 gave reply dtd. 07.01.2019 They mentioned rule 167(7) of POSD manual vol-I which reads as under
“(7) Payment of POSB interest on excess investment beyond the prescribed limit under Post Office Monthly Income Scheme:- If a depositor has made an excess investment beyond the prescribed limit under the Post Office Monthly Income Account Scheme, the excess deposit beyond the prescribed limit will be refunded by the PM/SPM with the POSB rate of interest to the depositor. The interest already paid on the excess amount will be recovered/ adjusted from the amount refunded. The commission paid to the agent on the excess investment will also be recovered from the agent.”
As per said rule if a depositor made excess investment beyond the prescribed limit under the Post Office Monthly Income Account Scheme the excess deposit beyond prescribed limit will be refunded by PM/SPM with the POSB @ interest to the depositors.
Interest already paid on the excess amount will be recovered/ adjusted from the amount refunded. The commission paid to the agent on the excess investment will also be recovered from the agent.
On perusal of the SB Statement, we find that OP no. 1 and 2 paid interest amounting Rs. 33,840/- and deducted Rs. 68,741/- that indicates that complainant sustained loss of Rs. 34,901/-.
Ld. Adv. for the complainant argued that there is no fault on the part of the complainant so OP no. 1 and 2 may be directed to refund the same.
We find also that complainant invested an excess amount of Rs. 25,500/- .
Complainant stated in her letter dtd.23.10.2018 that same has done due mistake and negligence.
Moreover, rule 167(7) of POSB Manual Vol-I mentioned in the letter of OP no. 1 dtd. 07.01.2019 is very much clear.
We also find that OP no. 2 after observing the said rule deducted amount Rs. 34,901/- from complainant.
Accordingly, we do not find any fault on the part of the OP no. 1 and 2.
Having regard to the aforesaid discussion, it is clear before us that complainant has failed to establish her case.
In the result present case fails.
Hence,
It is
Ordered
that the present case be and the same is dismissed on ex-parte against OP no.1 and.2 but without any order as to costs.
Dictated & corrected by me
............................................
PRESIDENT
(Shri DAMAN PROSAD BISWAS,) .................................................
PRESIDENT
(Shri DAMAN PROSAD BISWAS,)
I concur,
........................................
MEMBER
(NIROD BARAN ROY CHOWDHURY)
