Delhi

StateCommission

FA/558/2013

ANIL KAJRIWAL & SONS HUF & ORS. - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

21 Dec 2015

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION

(Constituted under section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

Date of Argument: 21.12.2015

Date of Decision: 07.01.2016

 

First Appeal-558/2013

(Arising out of the order dated 22.01.2013 passed by the

District Forum, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi in complaint case 1023/10)

 

        In the Matter of:

 

                1. M/s Anil Kejriwal & Sons, HUF,

          LP-11B, Pitampura,

          Delhi-110034

 

          2. M/s Amit Kejriwal & Sons, HUF,

          LP-11, Pitampura,

          Delhi-110034

……Appellant     Versus   1.   Union of India, Thru’  Ministry of Information & Broadcasting (India Post) Government of India, New Delhi-110001   2. The Post Master General, Delhi Circle, Meghdoot Bhawan, Link Road, New Delhi-110001   3. The Sr. Post Master Ashok Vihar Head Post Office, Delhi-110052   4. The Director, Small Savings & Lotteries, Govt. Of N.C.T. of Delhi, Directorate of Small Savings & Lotteries, 5th Floor, N-Block, Vikas Bhawan, I.T.O., New Delhi-110002   5. Ms. Naseem Sharma, PPF/DLI/2700, KP-326, Pitampura, Delhi-110034                                                                                   …….Respondents

CORAM

  Salma Noor, Member

O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1.   Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the   judgment? 

2.   To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1.             This order will dispose of appeal against order dated 22.01.2013 passed by District Consumer Forum-V, Delhi dismissing the complaint. Facts giving rise to the filing of the complaint were that both the appellants opened two separate P.P.F. Account No. 120864 and 120863 respectively with OP-3, through OP-5 in March 2007. The payments were made by cheques drawn on Corporation Bank, Pitampura, Delhi. Duly filled in prescribed application form and cheques were handed over to OP-5. Properly stamped official receipt were issued by OP-3 in token of receipt of deposit on the next date. The application forms and the official receipts contains name of account holder as Anil Kejriwal & Sons, HUF. The complainant believed that said accounts were opened in the name of HUF as applied. Several deposits were made thereafter on different dates and on 24.06.2009 sum of Rs. 35,500/- excluding interest stood deposited in each account. In the pass books issued on 20.03.2007 the name of HUF was left out purposefully. Complainants contacted OP-5 repeatedly who assured that she would get the mistake rectified. Complainants wrote letters dated 13.07.2009 asking the authorities to rectify the mistake and sent by UPC. No reply was sent to the complainant. OP-5 was annoyed by the said letter and refused further services to the complainant. The complainants sought information under RTI Act regarding their PPF vide application dated 19.08.2009. OP-3 responded vide letter dated 17.09.2009 and informed that both the PPF accounts stood in individual names of complainants. The complainants obtained copies of application forms submitted by them for opening their accounts which were delivered on 26.09.2009. The said copies are annexure C-4 and they show unauthorized and illegal cutting/additions in both the application forms. The copies of application forms filed by the complainants are annexure C-I. The complainants pointed out unauthorized illegal cutting in the forms to which OP-3 sent evasive reply dated 13.10.2009. The complainants sent reminder dated 19.10.2009 and the legal notice dated 17.12.2009. The assistant post master of OP-3 called the complainants in his office through letter received by the complainants on 13.01.2010. The services rendered by OPs suffered from imperfection, shortcomings and inadequacy. Hence, complainants sought directions to the OPs to rectify its record and treat the accounts as held by HUF(s) or in the alternative to refund the entire deposited amount with admissible interest from the date of deposit till date of refund. They also sought direction to OP-4 to terminate the agency of OP-5 and compensation of Rs. 25,000/- to each of the complainant. A sum of Rs. 20,000/- was claimed as costs of litigation.

2.             The District Forum proceeded to decide the case on the basis of notification no. GSR 287€ dated 13.05.2008 issued by Ministry of Finance to the effect that no institutional accounts including those in the name of HUF(s) would be opened or continued after 13.05.2008. The case was resisted by OPs on the ground that the pass books were issued in the name of individual depositors and not in the name of HUF(s) .

3.             The District Forum found that though applications were initially filed for opening the account in the name of HUF(s), applications were corrected and accounts were opened in individual name which is clear from the pass books issued in the name of individual. The cause of action therefore arose when the pass books came in possession of the complainants. The complaint was filed after 3 years of opening of the accounts and delivery of pass books. Hence, the same was barred by limitation. Even on merits no deficiency in service was found and the complaint was dismissed.

4.             We have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments. At the very outset, it may be mentioned that notification issued by Ministry of Finance for bidding institutional accounts in the name of PPF is dated 13.05.2005 and not dated 13.05.2008 as observed by the District Forum. The copies of application forms are as pages 28, 29 and 32, 33 of the appeal file. They recite that the applications were in the name of HUF(s). The copies of initial receipts containing impression of postal seal are at pages 30 and 33 which also contain the names of HUF(s).

5.             The copies of application forms produced by OP are at pages 42, 43 and 44 and 45. They show that words “and sons HUF” have been scored but they do not contain any signature or initial of the applicant. Thus, cuttings are not authorized.

6.             Anyhow the question is as to what is the effect of opening account in wrong name if the same is in contravention of notification dated 13.05.2005 issued by Ministry of Defence.

7.             In written statement filed by the appellant before District Forum they relied upon decision of National Commission in Kisan Shekari Chini Mills Ltd. Vs. Post Master General Bareli Division and Ors. Vol. II (2011) CPJ 162 NC to make out that complainants are entitled to interest on deposits in as much as post office is a party to the opening of said irregular accounts. Moreover, deposited amount remained with the post office and complainant is entitled to receive interest on equitable consideration and principle of unjust enrichment.

8.             So far as the question of limitation is concerned, it may be observed that PPF accounts are opened for 15 years. Even premature withdrawal is permissible only after 5 years. Thus, complainant could not seek the withdrawal immediately on receiving the pass books. Moreover, such accounts are akin to fixed deposit and in such cases the cause of action is continuous. Thus, the complaint cannot be said to be barred by limitation.

9.             On merits, the counsel for the appellant relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhagvati Vanaspati Traders Vs. Senior Superintendent post offices (2015) I SCC 617. After considering rule 17 of the post office savings bank general rule 1981, it was held that post office is liable to refund the amount along with interest. Reliance has also been placed on another decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arulmighu Dhandayudha Panishwamy Vs. The Director General of Post Offices (2011) 13 SCC 220. In that case rule 16 and 17 were reproduced. Rule 16(2) specifically provides that where an account is found to have been opened incorrectly under a category applied for by depositors  and correction of the same is not permissible, the relevant head savings bank must refund the amount to the depositor with interest @ applicable from time to time of a savings account.

10.            We feel that the present case is covered under rule 16(2) of the Post Office Savings Banks rules. Accordingly, the appeals are accepted and the impugned order is set aside. Respodnent-3 is directed to refund the amount of deposits made by appellants in both the accounts along with interest applicable to savings accounts from the date of deposit till the date of refund, within one month. Anyhow, prayer for compensation is declined in as much as it was not a case of deliberate mistake by Ops. It was a case of over-sight of the notification and a bonafide mistake committed by the OPs which too was partially corrected by issuing pass books in the name of individual.

                Copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs and one copy of this order be sent to District Forum.

                File be consigned to record room.  

(Salma Noor)

Member

 

 

(O.P. Gupta)

Member (Judicial)

Rakeeba