1.      This revision petition has been filed by petitioners Smt. Sadhna Chaturvedi & Anr., against the order dated 05.08.2015 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in  Appeal No.2345 of 2008.

2.      The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners/complaints, Smt. Sadhana Chaturvedi and another opened one Joint Account under Monthly Income Savings Scheme on 30.01.2006 at Sub Post Office, Arya Samaj Road, Mathura and deposited 4 cheques of Dena Bank, Mathura bearing Nos.1311178, 1311179,1311180 and 1464011 for Rs.1,50,000.00 each totalling to Rs.6 lacs. The complainants were not issued Pass Book of the same in time and, therefore, a complaint was made in this regard to the higher authorities.  Consequently, the Postal Authorities informed them on 28.02.2006 that the aforesaid four cheques of Rs.1.50 lacs each were lost in transit.  Therefore, the complainants again deposited 4 cheques bearing Nos.7464016 to 7464019 on 1.3.2006 and the same were credited in the account concerned on 3.3.2006.  In the meantime, there was a change in the policy and the grant of 10% Bonus, payable under the Monthly Income Scheme was withdrawn with effect from 13.2.2006. Accordingly, the complainants were denied of the benefits of Bonus.  Aggrieved by this  deficiency in service,     complaint case no.220 of 2006 was filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mathura, (in short ‘the District Forum’) for redressal of their grievances. 

3.      The complaint was resisted by the opposite party.  The District  Forum, after considering the submission of both the parties allowed the complaint as under on 04.11.2008:-

“It is hereby ordered to pay the amount of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand only) to the appellants by the opposite party.  The payment should be made within three months of decision.  In case the payment is not made within three months, the opposite party would liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum on this amount till the date of realization.  The opposite would also pay Rs.2000/- as cost of litigation.”

4.      Aggrieved with the order of the District Forum, the opposite party preferred an appeal before the State Commission, which was allowed vide its order dated 05.08.2015.

5.      Hence the revision petition.

6.      Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.

7.      Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the complainant deposited four cheques of Rs.1,50,000/- each on 30.01.2006 with the Post Office for opening Monthly Income Scheme (MIS) account.  The complainant did not receive any information and the post office/opposite party informed on 28.02.2006 that the cheques were lost in transit and the complainant may deposit fresh cheques to open the MIS account.  Accordingly, the complainant deposited fresh cheques of the same amount on 01.3.2006, which were encashed on 03.3.2006 and MIS account was opened on 03.03.2006 itself.  In the meantime, the Government of India had withdrawn the benefit of 10% bonus from the MIS Scheme with effect from 13.02.2006.  Thus, the complainant was prevented from getting 10% bonus as the MIS account started only from 03.03.2006.  As the complainant had deposited the cheques in January itself, in the normal course, MIS account could have been opened before 13.02.2006 and complainant would have got benefit of 10% bonus under the Scheme.  Thus, the complainant suffered a loss of Rs.60,000/- and that is why complaint was filed.  The District Forum had allowed the complaint, whereas, the State Commission allowed the appeal filed by the opposite party and has set aside the order of the District Forum.  The learned counsel argued that this loss has occurred to the complainant due to deficiency of the opposite party that the original cheques submitted in the month of January, were lost and MIS account could not be opened by 13.02.2016.  The State Commission has set aside the order of the District Forum on the ground that when the MIS account actually started on 03.03.2006, there was no benefit of 10% bonus with the Scheme and hence complainant was not entitled for this bonus.  It was argued that the State Commission has not appreciated the fact that this loss has occurred due to negligence and deficiency of the opposite party for not encashing the cheque in time. 

8.      On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent/opposite party states that MIS account could only be open on 03.03.2006 when the benefit of bonus was not available in the scheme.  If the complainant was so particular about the bonus, he should not have opened the account as by that time the Scheme was already amended and the provision regarding bonus was withdrawn.  Government of India has powers to amend the Scheme any time.  The same was done on 13.02.2006.  Hence, opposite party is not deficient in any way and the State Commission has rightly set aside the order of the District Forum. 

9.      I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by leaned counsel for both the parties and have examined the material on record. It is also seen that the revision petition has been filed with delay and the petitioner has submitted an application for condonation of delay of 15 days, whereas, office has reported a delay of 28 days in filing the revision petition.  Be that as it may, as the delay is less than a month, same is condoned on the grounds mentioned in the application for condonation of delay.

10.    It is true that the cheques were first submitted by the complainant in the last week of January, however they were lost in transit and could not be encashed by the opposite party for opening of MIS account.  The complainant submitted their cheques again on 01.03.2006 and the account under MIS became operative from 03.03.2006.  Clearly on 03.03.2006, the provision regarding 10% bonus was not there in the Scheme.  Hence, the 10% bonus cannot be granted to the complainant. The State Commission has rightly observed that deficiency of opposite party in regard to loss of cheques in transit is a different matter then that of awarding bonus under the MIS Scheme.  I agree with the assertion of the learned counsel for the respondent that as the 10% bonus had already been withdrawn with effect from 13.02.2006, there was no compulsion on the complainant to open MIS Scheme, if he was so particular about the bonus.  He deposited cheques on 01.03.2006 fully knowing that 10% bonus was not available to him. In these circumstances, he cannot claim for 10% bonus under the Scheme. Moreover, had the notification withdrawing 10% bonus from MIS not been issued, the complainant would not have had any grudge against the opposite party.  It means that cause of action for his grievance is the notification of Government of India for withdrawing 10% bonus from the Scheme.  Government of India is empowered to change provisions under these saving schemes and that power has not been challenged in the complaint, therefore, complainant cannot claim any compensation for implementing this notification.

11.    Based on the above discussion, I find no illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order dated 05.08.2015 of the State Commission, which calls for any interference from this Commission.  Accordingly, Revision Petition No.3173 of 2015 is dismissed.