H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA-9.



F.A. No. 196 of 2007

Decided on 22.7.2009.



1. The Post Master General,

Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-9.



2. The Post Master Dadahu,

District Sirmour, H.P. ....Appellants.

Versus



1. Mahesh Kumar Aggarwal,

Son of Sh. Roshan Lal Aggarwal,

Resident of Village Dadahu,

Tehsil Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P.



2. Smt. Rekha Aggarwal,

Wife of Sh. Arun Kumar,

Son of Sh. Ved Parkash,

R/o Village Dadahu, Tehsil Nahan,

(Authorised Agent of Post Office).



…..Respondents.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.), President.

Hon’ble Mrs. Saroj Sharma, Member.

Hon’ble Mr. Chander Shekher Sharma, Member.



Whether approved for reporting ?



For the Appellants. Mr. Vijay Arora, Advocate. with Mr. Kewal Ram,

Office Supervisor in the office

of Supdt. Post Offices at Solan.



For the Respondents. Mr. Himanshu Machhan, Advocate

vice Mr. Neeraj Kumar Sharma,

Advocate for respondent No.1.



Mr. Ashok Tyagi, Advocate vice

Mr. Viveka Nand, Advocate

for respondent No.2.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ORDER



Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.) President.



1. Appellants are aggrieved from the order passed by District Forum, Shimla camp at Nahan, in Complaint No. 95/2005, decided on 8.3.2007. While allowing the complaint, District Forum below ordered the appellants to regularize the recurring accounts bearing Nos. 171825 and 171830 and at the same time to accept the instalments from respondent No.2. Respondent No. 2 has been directed to pay Rs. 500/- as costs.



2. During the course of hearing, it was not disputed between the parties that there were two recurring deposits of Rs. 500/- per month for a period of 5 years. Further according to the learned counsel for the parties, that in case deposits were made regularly without any break, then in 60 equated installments, respondent No.1 would have deposited a sum of Rs. 30,000/- in each account during 5 years. On this sum he was to get interest in the sum of Rs. 9480/-. Thus in all he would have got Rs. 39,480/- in each account.



3. Against the sum of Rs. 30,000/- respondent No.1 had admittedly deposited Rs. 21,500/-. Mr. Arora on instructions received from the Officer from the office of appellant No.1 stated at the bar that the respondent No.1 has deposited only Rs. 21,500/- in each account. This was not disputed on behalf of respondent No.1. On this sum, per Mr. Arora appellants are ready and willing to pay Rs. 6,794/- as interest + Rs. 1980/- as Post Maturity Interest. Thus total sum of Rs. 8,774/-, his clients are ready and willing to pay to respondent No.1 in addition to Rs. 21,500/- in each account.



4. So far direction regarding continuing the recurring deposits as noted hereinabove is concerned, no such directions could have been given in view of Rule 7 of the Post Offices Recurring Deposits Rules, 1981. This rule reads as under :-

“(a) in rule 7, for sub-rules (1) and (2), the following sub-rules shall be substituted, namely :-



(1) If there are not more than four defaults in monthly deposits, the depositor may, as its option, extend the maturity period of the account by as many months as the number of defaults and deposit the defaulted instalments during the extended period.



(2) If there are more than four defaults, the account shall be treated as discontinued. Revival of the account shall be permitted only within a period of two months from the month of fifth default. Interest at the rate of ten paise for every five rupee of a defaulted instalment for each month of default shall also be paid alongwith such deposit in lump-sum and an account in which defaulted instalments are so deposited, shall not be treated as discontinued.”



5. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that there were more than 4 defaults. In these circumstances as per rule, the account had to be treated as dis-continued. It is also not the case of respondent No.1 that he applied for grant of benefit of sub-rule (2) supra. Thus we are of the view that the District Forum below fell into error when it directed the appellants to regularize the recurring accounts as detailed in the impugned order and also to accept the instalments. Such directions in our opinion is contrary to the rules framed u/s 15 of the Government Saving Banks Act, 1873. Such direction to regularize the accounts and accept instalments could not have been issued, and therefore the order of District Forum below is liable to set aside. Ordered accordingly.



6. However, keeping in view the stand of Mr. Arora, we are of the view that respondent No.1 does not suffer at all in any manner because he would have got Rs. 9,480/- only after having deposited Rs. 30,000/- that too after 5 years. In the instant case he will be getting interest + post maturity interest alongwith the amount deposited in each account. In these circumstances equities will be well adjusted between the parties. However we feel that laxity on the part of respondent No.2 who was admittedly the saving bank agent to whom the money was given by respondent No.1 but she did not deposit it with appellant No.2 in time. In these circumstances while partly allowing this appeal it is ordered as under :-

a) that the appellants are liable to pay Rs. 60,548/- to respondent No.1 in respect of his both the account Nos. referred to above i.e Rs. 30,274/- each (Rs. 21,500/- amount deposited + Rs. 6, 794/- towards interest on deposited amount + Rs. 1,980/- towards from maturity interest) and in addition to this cost payble by respondent No.2 to respondent No.1 is quantified at Rs. 1000/- instead of Rs. 500/- as ordered by the District Forum below.



b) so far direction regarding regularization of saving bank accounts etc. as ordered by the Distict Forum below is concerned, it is set aside, and



c) Subject to this modification, appeal is disposed of.





7. All interim orders passed from time to time shall stand vacated forthwith.



8. Learned counsel for the parties have undertaken to collect copy of this order free of cost from the Court Secretary as per Rules.




(Justice Arun Kumar Goel)Retd.

President





(Saroj Sharma)

Member





(Chander Shekher Sharma)

Member

Suneera

22.7.2009