Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/378

Ashok Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Union of India Min.of Post & Telegraph - Opp.Party(s)

Rakesh Sabharwal Adv.

25 Mar 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:378 dated 07.08.2019.                                                         Date of decision: 25.03.2022. 

 

Ashok Kumar Gupta Karta of Ashok Kumar Gupta HUF C/o. Ashok Sons, G.T. Road, Miller Ganj, Near Manju Cinema, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                       ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Union of India, through the Director of Accounts, Ministry of Post and Telegraph, New Delhi through its Secretary.
2. The Senior Superintendent, Post Office, CPO, Bharat Nagar Chowk, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                                      …..Opposite parties 

          Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,               1986.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. D.S. Sood, Advocate.

For OPs                          :         Sh. R.K. Gupta, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the complainant is that the complainant was maintaining PPF account No.10355 since the year 1998 with OP2. The complainant has been regularly depositing money in the said account right from 31.03.2019. The PPF account matured on 31.03.2019. The OPs issued cheque No.029906 dated 04.04.2019 for a sum of Rs.13,23,080/-. However, the Ops have not added any interest on the deposited amount after the year 2013 which cannot be justified. It amounts to deficiency of service on the part of OP2. The complainant approached the OPs to pay the balance interest w.e.f. March 2013 onwards which comes to Rs.5,28,284/- but the OPs have not paid the same. The complainant got served a legal notice dated 15.04.2019 through their counsel Sh. Rakesh Sabherwal, Advocate but to no avail. Hence the complaint whereby it has been requested that the Ops be directed to pay the due interest from March 2013 onwards which comes to Rs.5,28,284/- along with compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.22,000/-

2.                The complaint has been resisted by the OPs. In the written statement filed on behalf of the OPs, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable nor the complainant has got any cause of action to file the present complaint. According to the OPs, as a matter of fact, the account in question was required to be closed on the maturity of account on 31.03.2016 and, therefore, no interest was payable as per rules and statutory provisions of law. The PPF account was opened on 20.06.1998 in the name of Ashok Kumar Gupta HUF with initial deposit of Rs.500/-. In PPF accounts the interest was to be paid on deposits made up to its expiry on account of completion of 15 years from the date of opening of the account as per the directions of Director General of Post issued vide letter No.32-01/2010-SB dated 13.12.2010. As per the said directions, the PPF accounts opened in the name of HUF prior to 13.05.2005 could not be further extended nor any deposit could be accepted in such account after the expiry of maturity period of 15 years. The Ministry of Finance vide circular dated 07.12.2010 amended in para graph 9 of PPF scheme rules by adding the provisions in respect of PPF accounts opened in HUF category prior to 13.05.2005.  As per the said notification, from 07.12.2010 onwards, the PPF accounts opened in HUF category prior to 13.05.2005, no interest was to be payable after the completion of 15 years. It further provided that HUF PPF account opened prior to 13.05.2005 which have already matured, but not closed shall be closed on 31.03.2011 and no interest would be payable. The complainant kept the PPF HUF No.10355 (new 5503320398) alive against the provisions of aforesaid circular. The complainant also got the same extended for 5 years with a deposit of Rs.20,000/- on 03.04.2014/09.04.2014 through cheque. The irregular extension of the account also went unnoticed at Millar Ganj Post office as well as Head Post Ludhiana. However, an amount of Rs.13,23,080/-  has been paid to the complainant towards full and final settlement of this claim. The rest of the averments made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and in the end, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3.                The complainant has filed replication to the written statement reiterating the facts those mentioned in the complaint and controverting those made in the written statement.

4.                In evidence, the complainant submitted his affidavit as Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C4 and closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, the counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Kulwant Singh, Superintendent of Post Office, City Division, Ludhiana along with documents Ex. R1 to Ex. R4 and closed the evidence.

6.                We have heard the counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully.

7.                The facts of the case are not disputed. It is not disputed that the complainant maintained a PPF account No.10355 in the name of Ashok Kumar Gupta HUF. The account was opened on 20.06.1998.  It is also not disputed that PPF account is for a period of 15 years and is extendable for further term of 5 years each after completion of 15 years. However, so far as PPF account maintained in the category of HUF are concerned, the Government of India issued circular/notification Ex. R2 dated 13.12.2010 which said that the PPF HUF accounts opened prior to 13.05.2005 would continue only till maturity but the maturity period would not be extended further nor any further deposit would be accepted in such account after maturity. The notification further provided that the HUF PPF account opened prior to 13.05.2005 would be closed on maturity i.e. on 31th March of 16^th financial year from the year in which the account was opened and no further interest would be admissible. The notification further provides that this amendment should be circulated to all post office handling PPF scheme and the matter in bullet points should be displayed on the notice boards of all the post offices and strict instructions should be issued to all postal staff at the counters to see the passbook at the time of deposit of subscription in PPF accounts and not to accept further deposits in such accounts after maturity. It further provides that any overpayment of interest, if made, shall be the responsibility of the counter PA and the Supervisor.

8.                It is further not disputed that the PPF/HUF account held by the complainant was to mature in the year 2013. However, as candidly admitted by the OPs in the written statement, the account was erroneously extended for 5 years with a deposit of Rs.20,000/-  on 03.04.2014/09.04.2014 through cheque. The irregular extension went unnoticed and an account of Rs.13,23,080/- has been paid to the complainant vide cheque dated 04.04.2019. The grievance of the complainant is that after 31.03.2013, no interest has been paid by the OPs. Even though the account was allowed to be extended by 5 years and the complainant was also permitted to deposit money in the same. On the contrary, in the written statement, the OPs have claimed that after 31.03.2013, no interest was payable as per the notification. However, in this regard,  a reference can be made to the law laid down by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh in First appeal No.391 of 2017 decided on 24.05.2017 in Senior Superintendent of Post Offices Vs Pankaj Kansal and Sons and others whereby it has been held that it would be just and equitable if in such a situation, the OPs are directed to pay interest @6% per annum on the deposits made after 31.12.2005 as it would be equitable and rational. In this very case, there is a reference to the law laid down by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Deli in case title Sr. Suptd. Of Post Office, Amritsar & another Vs Ashok Kumar, HUF (I) (2011) CPJ 41 (NC).

9.                In the context of the present case, one cannot be oblivious of the fact that both the parties are at fault. Despite the circular Ex. R2, the officials of OPs extended the term of PPF account in April 2013 even though the notification prohibited them from doing so. There is no evidence of the fact that the notification was circulated amongst the public or was displayed on the notice boards of the post office concerned. Therefore, the fault appears more on the part of the officials of the OPs to whom the notification was circulated and despite that they extended the account and also accepted the money. In the given circumstances, in our considered view, it would be just  and proper, as has also been held by the Hon’ble State Commission and Hon’ble National Commission in the cases referred to above, if the OPs are made to pay the interest @6% per annum on the maturity amount in the PPF account of the complainant as on 31.03.2013 till date of actual payment along with composite costs of Rs.5,000/-. The OPs shall, however, be at liberty to proceed against the officials who extended the HUF PPF account of the complainant after 31.03.2013 and also accepted the deposits in the said account after 31.03.2013.     

10.           As a result of the above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with an order that OPs shall pay the interest @6% per annum on the maturity amount in the PPF account of the complainant as on 31.03.2013 till date of actual payment. OPs shall further pay a composite compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the complainant. The OPs shall be at liberty to proceed against the officials who extended the HUF PPF account of the complainant after 31.03.2013 and also accepted the deposits in the said account after 31.03.2013. Compliance of order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

11.              Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:25.03.2022.

Gobind Ram.

Ashok Kumar Vs Union of India                                    CC/19/378

Present:       Sh. D.S. Sood, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. R.K. Gupta, Advocate for OPs.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is partly allowed with an order that OPs shall pay the interest @6% per annum on the maturity amount in the PPF account of the complainant as on 31.03.2013 till date of actual payment. OPs shall further pay a composite compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the complainant. The OPs shall be at liberty to proceed against the officials who extended the HUF PPF account of the complainant after 31.03.2013 and also accepted the deposits in the said account after 31.03.2013. Compliance of order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                              (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:25.03.2022.

Gobind Ram.