Punjab

Sangrur

CC/679/2015

Dr. Surinder Singla - Complainant(s)

Versus

Union of India - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Yogesh Gupta

01 Mar 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  679

                                                Instituted on:    17.07.2015

                                                Decided on:       01.03.2016

 

Dr. Surinder Singla karta of Surinder Kumar Litesh Kumar HUF, Near Telephone Exchange, Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             Union of India, through Secretary, Sanchar Bhawan, New Delhi.

 2.            Postmaster, Head Post Office, Sangrur.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :               Shri Yogesh Gupta, Adv.

For OPs                    :               Shri  Kali Ram Garg, Adv.

 

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Dr. Surinder Singla, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant was a holder of account number 1863 with the OP number 2, which was opened on 26.3.1999.  It is further stated that in the last year, the complainant approached the officials of the post office and requested to pay the maturity amount, who disclosed that the amount will mature in 2015. It is further averred that the OP closed the account on 2.3.2015, but the interest was paid only up to 31.3.2014. It is further averred that the OP paid the amount of Rs.15,95,992/- vide cheque number 646390 dated 2.3.2015, which includes the interest only upto 31.3.2014.  It is further stated that the complainant accepted the amount under protest, as the OPs refused to pay interest.  It is further averred that as per the public provident fund scheme, the OPs are bound to intimate the account holder about the instructions of UOI/RBI at the time of closing the account, but the OPs failed to do so, as such, the complainant has stated that the OPs are bound to pay interest upon the amount in question from 1.4.2014 to 2.3.2015.  As such, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of Rs.15,95,992/- w.e.f. 1.4.2014 to 2.3.2015 and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by the OPs, it is admitted that the PPF account bearing number 1863 was opened in the head post office Sangrur on 26.3.1999 with initial subscription of Rs.5000/- through PPF Agent Shri Vijay Kumar Goyal and the said account has matured on 31.3.2014 and the same has been closed and the final payment of Rs.15,95,992/- has been made to the complainant vide cheque dated 2.3.2015. It has been stated that interest upto 31.3.2014 has already been paid and the interest thereafter i.e. 31.3.2014 cannot be paid in respect of PPF account opened under the category HUF as per SB order number 23/2010 issued vide letter number 320-1/2010-SB dated 13.2.2014, whereby it has been stated that the accounts opened in the name of HUF prior to 13.5.2005 will be closed on maturity i.e. 31^st March of the 16^th financial year from the year in which account was opened and no further interest shall be admissible.  It is further averred that the extension of the account after its maturity is not automatic, as such the said account of the complainant was closed on its maturity and the OPs are not liable to pay any interest after 31.3.2014.  However, any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs has been denied.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 copy of letter dated 2.3.2015, Ex.C-2 copy of cheque dated 2.3.2015, Ex.C-3 copy of public provident fund scheme, Ex.C-4 copy of letter, Ex.C-5 copy of schedule, Ex.C-6 affidavit, Ex.C-7 copy of pass book and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced  Ex.OPs-1 affidavit, Ex.OPs-2 copy of letter dated 12.3.2015, Ex.OPs-3 copy of notification, Ex.OPs-4 copy of letter dated 13.12.2010 and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

5.             It is not in dispute between the parties that the complainant had opened a PPF account bearing number 1863 with the OPs on 26.3.1999. It is further not in dispute that the OPs closed the account on its completion on 31.3.2014.  It is further not in dispute that the due amount of Rs.15,95,992/- has already been paid by the OPs to the complainant vide cheque number 646390 dated 2.3.2015.

 

6.             In the present case, the dispute is over the non payment of the interest on the amount of Rs.15,95,992/- for the period from 1.4.2014 to 2.3.2015 and the question for determination before us is whether the complainant is entitled or not to get the interest on the disputed amount for the period from 1.4.2014 to 2.3.2015. 

 

7.             It is an admitted case of the complainant that he received the amount of Rs.15,95,992/- on 2.3.2015 under protest as the interest on the said amount was paid only upto 31.3.2014, as is evident from the copy of protest letter dated 2.3.2015, which is on record as Ex.C-1 and the photostat copy of the cheque is Ex.C-2 on record. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Ops has stated that interest upto 31.3.2014 has already been paid and the interest thereafter i.e. 31.3.2014 cannot be paid in respect of PPF account opened under the category HUF as per SB order number 23/2010 issued vide letter number 320-1/2010-SB dated 13.2.2014, whereby it has been stated that the accounts opened in the name of HUF prior to 13.5.2005 will be closed on maturity i.e. 31^st March of the 16^th financial year from the year in which account was opened and no further interest shall be admissible. But, we are unable to accept such a contention of the learned counsel for the OPs, as the OPs never intimated the complainant about the said notification, whereas the Ops were duty bound to intimate the complainant about the same. If the Ops would have intimated the complainant about the above said notification, then the complainant must have withdrew the amount in time.  To support his contention, the learned counsel for the complainant has cited Post Master (SB/RD) General Post Office versus Amit Rai Sharma and another 2014(3) CPC 332 (NC), wherein the complainant opened a joint PPF account and deposited the amount with the post office, but the OPs denied to pay interest when this amount after expiry of fixed period of 15 years, in other term, the payment of interest on maturity was denied taking the plea of the relevant rules. The postmaster never brought to the notice of the complainant such Rules.  The Hon'ble National Commission directed the post office to pay interest on PPF amount as deposits were kept for 15 years in the post office account.  But, in the present case, it is not the case of the Ops that they ever brought the knowledge of the complainant the above said notification.  Further, the learned counsel for the complainant has cited Union of India and others versus Navnit N. Desai (Dr) 2016(1) CLT 331 (NC), wherein a notification issued by the Reserve Bank of India was not within the knowledge of the post office authorities and the complainant, it has been further held that it is a case of contributory negligence.  If they are to make such like notifications, they must advertise the same before hand, in newspapers, TVs and other means of communication.  It is always seen that the notifications are made abruptly without the knowledge of the subject.  Such like abrupt notifications rather go to show that the State gets unlawful enrichment and further held that this is unfair trace practice conducted by the state itself.  The Hon'ble National Commission in para 13 has further held that 'it appears to be case of contributory negligence. Both the parties were ignorant of the notification. It was the bounden duty of the Post Master, OP number 3 to bring that account to an end.   During the year 2009-10, when he came to know about the above said notification, it was his bounden duty to send back the money to the complainant along with interest accrued, thereon.  The bizarre conduct of the Reserve Bank of India is difficult to fathom.  If they are to make such like notifications, they must advertise the same before hand, in newspapers, TVs and other means of communication.  It is always seen that the notifications are made abruptly without the knowledge of the subject. Ours is a welfare state. The people should not be taken by surprise. There should be sufficient time to ponder over such like notifications. Such like abrupt notifications rather go to show that the State gets unlawful enrichment.  This is unfair trade practice conducted by the State itself.  If must be avoided to benefit the people.  It is, but clear that the amount must have been utilized by the Post Office officials. This is well known fact that they advance loans at a higher rate. Although, in view of the Supreme Court's authorities, it appears that the complainant is not entitled to the same rate as permitted in the case of PPF, yet there lies no rub in granting the complainant saving bank rate of interest at 4% per annum."  The present case is also on the same footing, whereas the OPs have miserably failed to intimate the complainant about the above said notification.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has relied upon a decision of this Forum pronounced in complaint number 58 of 2014 on 12.8.2014 in case titled as Surinder Kumar versus Post Office, wherein the complaint was dismissed.  But, it is worth mentioning here that at that time the above said rulings were not brought to the knowledge of this Forum, as such, the decision is going otherwise.                

 

8.             In the present case, it is clear that the OPs never brought to the knowledge of the complainant the above said notification, as such, we feel that the ends of justice would be met if the complainant is allowed the saving interest only @ 4% per annum on the amount of Rs.15,95,992/- for the period from 1.4.2014 to 2.3.2015, as no doubt the Ops have utilized the above said amount for the disputed period as mentioned above.

 

9.             In view of our above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and as such, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct OPs to pay to the complainant interest @ 4% per annum on the amount of Rs.15,95,992/- for the period from 1.4.2014 to 2.3.2015.  The OPs shall also pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.15,000/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and Rs.11,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

 

10.           This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                March 1, 2016.

 

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                                   (K.C.Sharma)

                                                        Member

 

 

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member