CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI



First Appeal No. 908/2008 Date of Filing:

In Consumer Complaint No.:43/2006

District Consumer Forum: South Mumbai Date of Order: 04/03/2009



1. The Post Master, General Appellants

Maharashtra Circle, (Org.Opp.Parties)

Office at General Post Office, GPO Bldg,

Mumbai- 400 001.

2. The Senior Post Master,

In charge of Girgaum Post Office,

Girgaum, Mumbai- 400 004.

V/s.

Ms.Sweetoo Harendra Mehta, Respondents

132, Khusunum, 29/A Altamount (Org.complainant)

Road, Mumbai- 400026.





Corum : Mr.P.N.Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member.

Smt S.P.Lale, Hon’ble Member.



Present : Adv.Mr.V.Narayanan for appellants.

Adv.Mr.S.K.Munsiff for respondent



-: ORAL ORDER :-

Per Shri P.N.Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member

Being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by District Forum, South Mumbai in consumer complaint no.43/2006 delivered on 30/04/2008, whereby while allowing the complaint the Forum below directed the Postal Department to pay Rs.2,31,743/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from 09/09/2005 till realisation of the entire amount and also directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for physical harassment and Rs.5,000/- towards costs, postal department has filed this appeal.

Facts to the extent material may be stated as under:

Complainant/Ms.S.Mehta had filed consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of postal department officials. According to complainant, through an authorized agent she opened National Saving Scheme(NSS)account no. 200445 on 30/08/2008 under National Saving Scheme of 1987 and deposited Rs.30,000/- She was refunded on 08/09/2005 principal amount with interest after deducting amount of TDS amounting to Rs.1,19,450/-. It was pleaded that during the intervening period her saving bank passbook was misplaced. Therefore, she opened another account under National Saving Scheme(NSS),1987 on 03/03/1989 under account no. 202645 and deposited Rs.90,000/- against which she was entitled to get refund of Rs. 3,21,743/- after deducting TDS of Rs.85,527/- from the total amount of Rs.4,07,270/- as on 08/09/2005. The grievance of the complainant is that only principal amount was refunded towards the second account and balance interest amount of Rs. 2,31,743/- was not given to her on the ground that complainant can not open more than one account under National Saving Scheme(NSS), 1987 and since, there was breach of relevant rules the postal department refused to pay interest on the second account opened by the complainant by keeping Rs.90,000/-. According to complainant, the said rule not to open more than one account and forfeit whole of the interest from the second account of NSS was an illegal action of the postal department. Hence, she had sent letters and legal notice and ultimately, she filed consumer complaint praying various releifs against the postal department.

Opposite party/postal department officials contested the complaint by filing written statement. It pleaded that complainant had opened more than one account and therefore, she was not entitled to get interest on the second account. She was entitled to get interest on the first account opened under NSS scheme. It was pleaded that complainant could have taken duplicate pass book if her first passbook had been misplaced. Complainant had never informed about the misplacement of passbook. She kept mum and opened second account through an agent, who was authorized by the Government, who was aware of the rules and regulations. Postal department pleaded that even the complainant is supposed to know rules and regulations and then purchase the NSS scheme. She also violated rules and therefore, she is not entitled to get interest on the second account,

On the basis of affidavits and documents placed on record, the Forum below held that the complainant was entitled to get interest on the principal amount of second account i.e. account no. 202645 and opposite parties were guilty of deficiency in service in forfeiting the interest on the second account. Therefore, the Forum below allowed the complaint and passed impugned award. Aggrieved thereby, the postal department has filed this appeal.

We heard Adv.Mr.V.Narayanan for appellants and Adv.Mr.S.K.Munsiff for respondent

We perused the impugned award and judgment under challenge. The Forum below has passed a detailed order and relied upon the ruling of Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Department of Posts & Telegraphs V/s. Dr.R.C.Saxena (Revision petition No.588of 1995), reported in 1977 (I) CPR 74. We are of the view that the Forum below rightly took the view that opposite party must pay interest on the second account opened to be by the complainant. What is pertinent to note is the fact that postal department allowed the second account opened by the complainant. It is the case of the opposite party that she had opened second account under NSS scheme of 1987 not in another post office but in same post office she opened both the account and second account was opened because first passbook/account opened by her was misplaced. It is the duty of the postal department to verify who is opening account. Whether he was first timer or whether he or she is the second timer. The complainant had not concealed her identity. She had opened account in the same name and in the same post office. So it was the lapse on the part of postal department that they permitted the complainant to open two accounts in contravention of their rules and postal department committed mistake and that mistake can not be condoned by any Forum to exonerate postal department from its liability arising out of giving permission to complainant to open two accounts in the same post office. When second account was allowed to be opened by postal department, it can not be heard to say that saving bank agent of Government had opened the said second account for the complainant. The Agent is also Agent of the postal department. Postal department gave commission to such Agents. So if the Agent Committed the mistake or he allows the complainant to open fraudulently another account under said scheme of NSS, 1987, the postal department must be held liable for the acts and omissions of its agent. So, looked from any angle in our view, the Forum below had committed no error of law in directing the postal department to pay interest on the amount of Rs.90,000/- in respect of second account opened by the complainant. The order under challenge therefore is appearing to be just and proper and sustainable in law. It is the folly of the Postal Department for which they have to suffer. The poor consumers can not be allowed to suffer the way the appellants them to suffer. Hence, we are finding no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant. As such, we pass the following order:



:-ORDER-:



1. Appeal stands summarily rejected.

2. Parties are left to bear their own costs.

3. Pronounced and dictated in open court.

4. Copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties.





(S.P.Lale) (P.N.Kashalkar)

Member Presiding Judicial Member