DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, PUNJAB.

Complaint Case No : CC/63/2022

Date of Institution   : 21.02.2022

Date of Decision    : 14.07.2023

Sunil Kumar Garg son of Shanti Saroop Garg, resident of B-XI/602, K.C. Road, Street No. 7, Ward No. 21, Barnala, Tehsil and District Barnala, through its special power of attorney Sh. Harish Kumar son of Prem Kumar resident of House No. 1068-B, Sekha Road, Street No. 1, Ward No. 10, Barnala, Tehsil and District Barnala.     

                          …Complainant Versus

1. Head Post Office, Barnala, through its District Saving Officer. 

2. Assistant Superintendent of Posts, East Sub Division, Sangrur-148001.    

                          …Opposite Parties

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Present: Sh. P.S. Kaushal counsel for complainant.

Sh. A.K. Jindal counsel for opposite parties.

Quorum:-

1. Sh. Jot Naranjan Singh Gill : President

2.Smt. Urmila Kumari : Member

3.Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg : Member

 

(ORDER BY JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL, PRESIDENT):

The complainant namely Sunil Kumar Garg son of Shanti Saroop Garg through its special power of attorney Sh. Harish Kumar son of Prem Kumar has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, (amended upto date) against Head Post Office, Barnala and others (hereinafter referred as opposite parties).  

2. The facts leading to the present complaint are that the complainant has appointed Sh. Harish Kumar son of Sh. Prem Kumar as his special power of attorney to file the present complaint against the opposite parties. It is alleged that the complainant availed the services of opposite party by opening a PPF account bearing No. 17662 later on merged in New Account No. 2384679117 with opposite party No. 1 which provides service under the opposite party No. 2. It is further alleged that there is an outstanding amount of Rs. 10,43,311/- against the opposite parties till 31.3.2021 of complainant and vide letter No.F/Barnala SO/PPF/533/2021-2022 at Sangrur dated 6.10.2021, the complainant was intimated and asked to acknowledge the balance amount of Rs. 10,43,311/- at credit of PPF account No. 2384679117 opened at post office Barnala, which was acknowledged by the complainant vide reply form dated 12.10.2021. However, an amount of Rs. 10,43,311/- of complainant was outstanding against the opposite parties but the opposite parties illegally and arbitrarily released only Rs. 6,61,472/- to complainant through cheque, as such an amount of Rs. 3,81,839/- was outstanding against the opposite parties till 31st day of March 2021, which now comes to the tune of Rs. 4,18,877/- (after adding interest for the period of 31.3.2021 to 13.10.2021, which comes to the tune of Rs. 37,038/-) and complainant has many times requested the opposite parties to release the said amount alongwith upto date interest by personally appearing before the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 but they did not hear the request of the complainant and ultimately refused to do so. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence, the present complaint is filed for seeking the following reliefs.- 

i) To pay Rs. 4,18,877/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum to the complainant.  

ii) Further, to pay the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of compensation for harassment and Rs. 50,000/- as litigation expenses.  

3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite parties appeared and filed written version taking legal objections interalia on the grounds that the complainant has got no locus-standi or cause of action to file the present complaint, the present complaint is bad on account of mis joinder and non joinder of necessary parties, not maintainable, complainant is not consumer etc. 

4. On merits, it is admitted to the extent that during the process of account verification of Barnala Post Office SB-46 issue to Sunil Kumar Garg HUF with balance of Rs. 10,43,311/- upto 31.3.2021 and this amount arrived at due to technical software error as the interest was automatically calculated and credited after year 2015 by System due to non closure of PPF account on maturity. It is submitted that this account was due to be closed during financial year 2014-2015 or holder had to move application for extension of account for further five years  in case of individual account holder. But in the present case the account was HUF and all HUF PPF account holder  were requested to get their PPF account closed but the applicant didn't. It is further submitted that an amount of Rs. 6,61,472/- made to account holder Sunil Kumar Garg HUF as per Government Instructions as available balance upto 31.3.2015 i.e. on completion of fifteen financial years. Moreover, PPF account opened for the period for 15 years, the extension is required for further maintain of said account, but HUF accounts are not extendable as per Government Instructions. It is denied that the complainant is entitled to get amount of Rs. 4,18,877/- alongwith upto date interest from the opposite parties. It is further submitted that as per Notification dated 7.12.2010 issued by the Ministry of Finance Department of Economic Affairs, circulated by RBI/2010-11/344 dated 27.12.2010 the opposite parties correctly paid an amount of Rs. 6,61,472/- (with balance as on 31.3.2015) after deduction of Rs. 4,18,877/- out of total amount of Rs. 10,80,349/- upto date of closure of account. It is further submitted that the complainant has never moved to Post Office for getting their PPF account in question closed between 2015 and till date of closure of account. It was sole responsibility of account holder to get the account closed or submit extension application in case of individual account. But in the present complaint the complainant is HUF, hence further extension was not allowed. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and prayed for the dismissal of complaint. 

5. The complainant has filed rejoinder to the written version filed by the opposite parties and reiterated the averments as mentioned in the complaint. 

6. To prove his case the complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, affidavit of Harish Kumar Ex.C-2, copy of passbook Ex.C-3 (containing 4 pages), copy of letter dated 6.10.2021 ex.C-4, special power of attorney Ex.C-5, copy of statement of account Ex.C-6 and closed the evidence. 

7. To rebut the case of the complainant the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Narinder Singh, Superintendent Ex.O.P-1, copy of letter dated 27.12.2010 Ex.O.P-2, copy of Notification dated 7.12.2010 Ex.O.P-3, copy of letter dated 17.6.2011 Ex.O.P-4, copy of letter dated 1.6.2011 Ex.O.P-5 and closed the evidence.  

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on file. Written arguments filed by the parties. 

9. Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant has appointed Sh. Harish Kumar son of Sh. Prem Kumar as his special power of attorney to file the present complaint against the opposite parties. It is further argued that the complainant has opened a PPF account bearing No. 17662 later on merged in New Account No. 2384679117 with opposite party No. 1 (Ex.C-3). It is also argued that there is an outstanding amount of Rs. 10,43,311/- against the opposite parties till 31.3.2021 of complainant which shows from letter No.F/Barnala SO/PPF/533/2021-2022 at Sangrur dated 6.10.2021 (Ex.C-4), but the opposite parties illegally and arbitrarily released only Rs. 6,61,472/- to complainant through cheque and an amount of Rs. 3,81,839/- was outstanding against the opposite parties till 31st day of March 2021, which now comes to the tune of Rs. 4,18,877/- (after adding interest for the period of 31.3.2021 to 13.10.2021, which comes to the tune of Rs. 37,038/-). Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant has many times requested the opposite parties to release the above said amount alongwith upto date interest by personally appearing before the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 but they did not hear the request of the complainant and ultimately refused to do so.

10. Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties argued that during the process of account verification of Barnala Post Office SB-46 issue to Sunil Kumar Garg HUF with balance of Rs. 10,43,311/- upto 31.3.2021 and this amount arrived at due to technical software error as the interest was automatically calculated and credited after year 2015 by System due to non closure of PPF account on maturity. It is further argued that this account was due to be closed during financial year 2014-2015 or holder had to move an application for extension of account for further five years in case of individual account holder but in the present case the account was HUF and all HUF PPF account holder  were requested to get their PPF account closed but the applicant didn't. It is further argued that an amount of Rs. 6,61,472/- made to account holder Sunil Kumar Garg HUF as per Government Instructions as available balance upto 31.3.2015 i.e. on completion of fifteen financial years. It is also argued that the PPF account opened for the period for 15 years and the extension is required for further maintain of said account but HUF accounts are not extendable as per Government Instructions. It is further argued that as per Notification dated 7.12.2010 issued by the Ministry of Finance Department of Economic Affairs, circulated by RBI/2010-11/344 dated 27.12.2010 (Ex.O.Ps-2) the opposite parties correctly paid an amount of Rs. 6,61,472/- (with balance as on 31.3.2015) after deduction of Rs. 4,18,877/- out of total amount of Rs. 10,80,349/- upto date of closure of account. It is further argued that the complainant has never moved to Post Office for getting their PPF account in question closed between 2015 and till date of closure of account it was sole responsibility of account holder to get the account closed or submit extension application in case of individual account, but in the present complaint the complainant is HUF, hence further extension was not allowed.

11. It is not disputed between the parties that an amount of Rs. 6,61,472/- was credited in the account of complainant through cheque on 20.10.2021 which proves from Ex.C-6 copy of statement of account. The allegation of the complainant is that an amount of Rs. 10,43,311/- was shown against the opposite parties till 31.3.2021 of complainant which shows from Ex.C-4 a letter No.F/Barnala SO/PPF/533/2021-2022 at Sangrur dated 6.10.2021 of opposite parties, but the opposite parties illegally and arbitrarily released only Rs. 6,61,472/- to complainant through cheque and an amount of Rs. 3,81,839/- was outstanding against the opposite parties till 31st day of March 2021, which now comes to the tune of Rs. 4,18,877/- (after adding interest for the period of 31.3.2021 to 13.10.2021, which comes to the tune of Rs. 37,038/-). On the other hand, in order to rebut the above said allegation of the complainant the opposite parties admitted in their written version to the extent that during the process of account verification of Barnala Post Office issued to Shri Sunil Kumar Garg HUF with balance of Rs. 10,43,311/- upto 31.3.2021 Ex.C-4 but the same arrived at due to technical software error as the interest was automatically calculated and credited after year 2015 by system due to non closure of PPF account on maturity. But the opposite parties have failed to place on record any document to show that they have issued any notice/letter to the complainant regarding the closing of PPF account in the year 2015 or on 21.3.2015 on completion of above said PPF account. Moreover, it shows from the copy of statement of account Ex.C-6 that the amount of Rs. 6,61,472/- was credited in the account of the complainant through cheque by the opposite parties on 20.10.2021 not in the year 2015. It is also proved from the record that the opposite parties have enjoyed the above said amount of the complainant almost six years. Even, the opposite parties have also failed to place on record any document to prove that they have issued/sent any government notification to the complainant in the shape of notice/letter regarding the individual or HUF PPF account. So, we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. 

12. In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is partly allowed and the opposite parties are directed to pay the amount of Rs. 3,81,839/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of 1.4.2021 till realization. The opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs. 5,500/- on account of consolidated amount of compensation as well as litigation expenses to the complainant.

13. Compliance of the order be made within the period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order.

14. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance. 

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

       14th Day of July, 2023

 

            (Jot Naranjan Singh Gill)

            President

 

(Urmila Kumari)

Member

 

(Navdeep Kumar Garg)

Member