ORAL
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW
APPEAL NO. 449 OF 2000
(Against the order dated 19-01-2000 in Complaint Case No.232/1999
of the District Consumer Commission, Ballia)
- Superintendent of Post Offices
Ballia Division, Ballia.
- Sub-Post Master, Post Office Shaswar
Pargana Khareed, District Ballia
...Appellants
Vs.
- Dinesh Singh
S/o Sri Bajrang Singh
- Smt. Neena Singh
W/o Sri Dinesh Singh
Both R/o Baithar
Pargana Khareed
District Ballia
...Respondents
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR, PRESIDENT
For the Appellant : Dr. Udai Veer Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent : None appeared.
Dated : 25-02-2022
JUDGMENT
MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR, PRESIDENT
This is an appeal filed by the Superintendent of Post Office, Ballia and another under Section-15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the judgment and order dated 19-01-2000 passed by the learned District Consumer Commission, Ballia in Complaint Case No. 232/1999 Dinesh Singh and another V/s Sub-Post Master, Ballia and another.
In brief facts of the case are that the opposite parties have deposited sum of Rs.1,38,000/- in joint Account No. 585045 and sum of Rs.3,00,000/- in another joint Account No. 585097 in the scheme introduced by the appellants named as Monthly Income Scheme (MIS) of the post office. The opposite parties, the depositors, were getting interest on the aforesaid deposits and the last interest was paid on 14-05-1999 on the entire deposited amount of Rs.4,38,000/-. Thereafter the appellant post office stopped the
-
payment of interest on the amount of Rs.30,000/- which the respondents claimed that the respondents are entitled to get the interest on the said amount also. Under the aforesaid Monthly Income Scheme the maximum amount was required to be deposited by the opposite parties was to the tune of Rs.4,08,000/- whereas Rs.30,000/- were excess deposited by the opposite parties on which the department/appellant has not paid any interest which is claimed by the complainants before the learned District Consumer Commission.
The learned District Consumer Commission vide impugned order dated 19-01-2000 has allowed the claim of the complainants/opposite parties and directed for payment of the interest on the excess amount deposited by the opposite parties i.e. on 30,000/-. Apart from the aforesaid direction the learned District Consumer Commission has also awarded compensation of Rs.1,000/- and cost of Rs.500/- while allowing the complaint.
The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that the direction issued by the learned District Consumer Commission with regard to refund of sum of Rs.2,608/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum is unjustified as the said amount is not payable to the complainants under the law as Monthly Income Scheme clearly prohibits for the same. The maximum limit of deposit is prescribed in the Monthly Income Scheme with effect from 15-08-1987 was Rs.4,00,000, however, the complainants deposited excess amount over and above the aforesaid limit.
Heard Dr. Udai Veer Singh, learned Counsel for the appellants.
No one is present on behalf of the opposite parties/complainants.
Instant appeal is pending before this Court since last about 22 years in which an interim order has been passed by this Court on 02-11-2000 which is operative.
Having heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and after considering the submission of learned Counsel for the appellants, I am of the view that the order passed by learned District Consumer Commission is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
Learned Counsel for the appellants has also placed reliance of the following judgments.
- Chandrakant B. Koyande V/s I.A.S.P.M. (Sb/Nss) Mukhya Dak
:3:
Ghar, P.O. Mumbai reported in 2009 CJ(NCDRC) 145.
02.Union of India and another V/s Rajinder Singh reported in 2016 CJ(NCDRC) 64.
The issue involved in the instant appeal is similar as of the aforesaid referred judgments of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Since the issue is squarely covered, the instant appeal is liable to be allowed. The order passed by the District Consumer Commission is liable to be set aside.
ORDER
The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order passed by the District Consumer Commission is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.
The appellants are directed to pay simple interest on the over and above amount deposited by the complainants under the Monthly Income Scheme i.e. on Rs.30,000.
There will be no order as to costs.
Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules.
The Stenographer is requested to upload this order on the website of this Commission at the earliest.
( Justice Ashok Kumar )
President
Pnt
Court-1
