Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/287/2015

Mr. P Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Post Master, Post Office - Opp.Party(s)

Appellant in person

25 Jan 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

                                                                 

First Appeal No.	:	287 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	03.11.2015
Date of Decision	:	25.01.2016

 

Mr. P. Ram R/o #1098,Sector 21-B,Chandigarh.

……Appellant/Complainant.

Versus

 

Post Master, Post Office, SCO 25-32, Sector 19, Chandigarh.  

….Respondent/Opposite Party.

 

 

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Argued by: 

 

Sh. P. Ram, appellant in person.

Sh. G. C.Babbar, Advocate for the respondent alongwith Sh. A. C. Bhardwaj, Publication Inspector of the respondent.

 

                                                                  

First Appeal No.	:	316 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	24.11.2015
Date of Decision	:	25.01.2016

 

Post Master, Post Office, SCO 25-32, Sector 19, Chandigarh.

  

 ……Appellant/Opposite Party.

Versus

 Mr. P. Ram R/o #1098,Sector 21-B,Chandigarh.

….Respondent/Complainant.

 

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

BEFORE:  JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

        MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

        MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

Argued by: 

 

Sh. G. C.Babbar, Advocate for the appellant    alongwith Sh. A. C. Bhardwaj, Publication Inspector of the appellant.

Sh. P. Ram, respondent in person.

 

PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

              This order shall dispose of two appeals bearing Nos.287 of 2015 filed by the complainant and 316 of 2015 filed by the Opposite Party, against the order dated 15.09.2015, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it partly allowed consumer complaint bearing No.165 of 2015, filed by the complainant, against the Opposite Party, and directed it as under: -

“13]      In view of the above the deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party, for not paying the interest for the period from 18th September, 2014 till closure of the account on MIS account of the complainant, is proved.  Therefore, the complainant stands partly allowed and the Opposite Party is directed as under:-

a]  To pay the interest for the period from 18th September, 2014 till closure of the account on the investment of Rs.9.00 lacs under MIS Account No.7858722 to the complainant;

b]  To pay a compensatory amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for causing him mental & physical harassment as well as towards litigation expenses.

This order shall be complied with by the Opposite party within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of its copy, failing which it shall be liable to pay interest @18% per annum on the awarded amount of Rs.10,000/- from the date of filing this complaint till it is paid, apart from paying the interest for the period from 18th September, 2014 till closure of the account on the investment of Rs.9.00 lacs under MIS Account No.7858722, as aforesaid.” 

2.           The facts, in brief, are that after retirement, the complainant alongwith his wife, made investment of  Rs.9.00 lacs in Post Office Monthly Income Scheme (MIS) under the account No.7858722 on 18.6.2010 and also invested Rs.15.00 lacs in Post Office Senior Citizen Saving Scheme Account (SCSSA) under the A/c No.297201 on 5.10.2010, with the Opposite Party - Post Office. It was stated that the complainant had to close the said accounts prematurely on 13.10.2014 and 10.10.2014 respectively due to some urgent need of money.  However, the Opposite Party denied interest payable on the investment of Rs.9.00 lacs, referred above, for the period from 18th September, 2014 till the date of closure of the account under the pretext that no interest was payable for a period less than one month.  It was further stated that no written reasoning was given in this regard.  It was further stated that in the other account No.297201, which was also got prematurely closed, the interest for a period less than one month was allowed by the Post Office (Ann.B). It was further stated that it was nowhere indicated that no interest was payable for a period less than one quarter.  It was further stated that the Opposite Party also deducted 1% of the invested amount in each case (investments), which was not justified for senior citizens.  It was further stated that the matter was brought to the notice of the Opposite Parties vide letter dated 18.11.2014 (Annexure C), which was replied vide Annexure-D stating that the deduction of interest had been rightly made. It was further stated that the act and conduct of the Opposite Party, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service and indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only) was filed, seeking directions to the Opposite Party, to pay interest from 18.09.2014 to 13.10.2014 in case of account No.7858722 on investment of Rs.9Lacs; pay 1% deduction in both the accounts amounting toRs.9,000/- + Rs.15,000/- = Rs.24,000/- alongwith up-to-date bank interest and Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment suffered.

3.         The Opposite Party, in its written version, admitted the investment of Rs.9.00 lacs and Rs.15.00 lacs so made by the complainant as well as having the same closed prematurely.  It was further stated that the complainant claimed the interest for the period 18.9.2014 to 13.10.2014 for both the accounts which was not permissible under the rules. It was further stated that in the case of MIS, the interest prescribed from time to time was payable monthly on completion of a month from the date of deposit and accordingly, if the money was paid prior to the completion of a month, the interest for that month was not payable and this was already provided in the pass book issued to the depositor at the time of opening of the accounts, which he agreed to be followed. It was further stated that on representation from the complainant, a reply dated 27.11.2014 was sent to the him (Annexure B) alongwith the copy of the instructions issued by the Govt. wherein it was specifically provided that the interest shall be payable monthly to the depositor on completion of the month from the date of deposit (Annexures C & D). It was further stated that the Govt. of India vide letter dated 15.11.2007 had clarified that the interest under the Senior Citizen Scheme shall be payable upto the end of the month preceding the month in which the account was prematurely closed (Annexure E).  It was further stated that @1% of the invested amounts in both the prematurely closed accounts was rightly deducted as per rules.  It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Party, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

4.           The complainant filed rejoinder, wherein he reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of the Opposite Party.

5.           The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

6.           After hearing the Counsel for the complainant and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, partly allowed the complaint, vide the impugned order, as stated above.

7.           Feeling aggrieved, both the complainant and the Opposite Party have filed the instant appeals.

8.         We have heard Sh. P. Ram, complainant in person and Sh. G. C. Babbar, Advocate, Counsel for the Opposite Party, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.

9.         Sh. P.Ram, complainant (appellant in Appeal No.287 of 2015) submitted that financial and banking operations are governed by Reserve Bank of India (RBI) Guidelines and no institution including Government Department could violate RBI instructions and any rule not in conformity with RBI guidelines is illegal and liable to be struck down. He further submitted that Department of Posts vide letter dated 15.11.2007 issued instructions regarding payment of interest under Senior Citizen Saving Scheme in accordance with RBI guidelines. He further submitted that as per RBI instructions, Banks were required to notify their policy regarding premature withdrawals to the depositors in advance i.e. at the time of acceptance of deposits. He further submitted that Post Office illegally deducted 1% of the invested amount in each case, which was not at all justified especially in the case of Senior Citizens. He further submitted that interest for the period from 18.09.2014 till date of closure of MIS account was also wrongly disallowed. He also submitted that no undertaking was obtained from him at the time of investment that premature withdrawals would attract penalty by way of 1% cut or that interest for period less than one month shall not be paid. The appellant submitted that he was entitled to payment of 1% deducted amount on both the accounts, amounting to Rs.9000/- (+) Rs.15,000/-= Rs.24,000/- alongwith up-to-date bank interest and with additional legal costs of Rs.10,000/-.

10.       The Counsel for the Opposite Party (appellant in Appeal No.316 of 2015) submitted that the deduction of penalty was made in accordance with the provisions of the relevant scheme. He further submitted that interest for the period less than one month was not payable as per policy. He further submitted that these instructions were clearly printed in the Passbook, copy of which was appended as Annexure–A with its written statement. He further submitted that interest in MIS account for the period 01.10.2014 to 13.10.2014 was not payable and though interest had been paid till 30.09.2014 but the District Forum wrongly directed for payment of interest for the period from 18.09.2014 till claimed i.e. upto closure of account on 13.10.2014.

11.       Admittedly, the complainant alongwith his wife made following investments in the Post Office, Sector 19, Chandigarh:-

1. Rs.9 Lacs in Post Office Monthly Income Scheme (MIS) under Account No.7858722 on 18.06.2010.
2. Rs.15 Lacs in Post Office Senior Citizen Saving Scheme Account (SCSSA) under A/c No.297201 on 05.10.2010.

After a period of around 4 years, the complainant got these accounts closed prematurely on 13.10.2014 and 10.10.2014 respectively due to some urgent need of money. For the amount invested in Post Office Monthly Income Scheme (MIS), the complainant has stated that he was denied interest payable for the period 18.09.2014 till the date of closure of account i.e. 13.10.2014 on the ground that no interest was payable for a period of less than one month. In the other Account, in which the complainant invested Rs.15 Lacs, interest for the period of less than one month was allowed by the Post Office. Regarding interest, almost a similar clause has been inserted in the Passbook (Annexure – A), which reads as under:-

 

(MIS)	(SCSSA)
The interest prescribed from time to time will be payable monthly on completion of a month from the date of deposit and if interest payable is not claimed, such interest will not earn any additional interest.	The interest applicable from time to time shall be payable quarterly on 31st March, 30th June, 30th September and 31st December. Interest payable if not claimed shall not earn any additional interest.”

 

The complainant submitted that no such stipulation appeared in the Passbooks issued to him for the two Accounts i.e. Monthly Income Scheme (MIS) Account and Senior Citizen Saving Scheme (SCSSA) though such a stipulation did appear in the Passbook of his Savings Bank Account.

12.       The first question, which falls for consideration, is, as to whether at the time of opening the two Accounts, in question, the complainant was made aware of the penalty clause of 1% deduction and provision relating to non-payment of interest for period less than a month. The answer to this question is in negative. Had any undertaking to this effect been obtained by the Opposite Party at the time of opening the Accounts, the Opposite Party being in possession of best evidence would have definitely brought the same into evidence. Since no such evidence has come on record, obviously, it means that no such undertaking was obtained from the complainant. As such, the complainant was not made aware of the penalty clause. Not only this, no such penalty clause was appearing in the Passbook issued to the complainant for MIS and SCSS Accouts.

13.       As far as grievance of the appellant regarding non-payment of interest under Monthly Income Scheme account no.7858722 for the period from 18.09.2014 till closure of account i.e. 13.10.2014 is concerned, the opposite party in its reply before the District Forum stated that interest was not permissible, under Rules. Earlier, when the appellant raised his grievance with the opposite party, vide his letter dated 18.11.2014, opposite party vide letter dated 27.11.2014 had informed as under:-

“”Please refer to your application dated 18.11.2014 a/t to Sub Postmaster Sector 19 Post office Chandigarh and copy endorsed to this office. It is intimated that as per Rules” The interest shall be payable monthly to the depositor on completion of a month from the date of deposit. Hence the payment has been made by the Sub Postmaster Sector 19 Post office Chandigarh is correct. A copy of ruling on the subject is also enclosed.”

14.       The relevant Rules annexed with the reply read, as under:-

“(2) The interest shall be payable monthly to the depositor on completion of a month from the date of deposit.”

15.       The above provision in Rules does not, in any manner, suggest that interest for period of less than a month is not payable. When the amount remained with Post Office, there is no justifiable reason, why it should not be paid. Even on savings bank account, interest on day-to-day basis is granted. Furthermore, interest in respect of other account vis. SCSSA  was not denied to the appellant.
16.       It is noted that in Appeal No.316 of 2015 filed by the opposite party, it has been stated that interest upto 30.09.2014 in MIS account stood paid and the District Forum erred in allowing interest, for the period from 18.09.2014 till 13.10.2014. At the same time, in its written statement filed before the District Forum, the opposite party had stated that interest on both the accounts was not permissible, whereas, the fact is that interest in SCSSA was not disallowed. There is no consistency in the written statement filed before the District Forum viz.a.viz. averment made in appeal filed by the opposite party regarding nonpayment of interest. In our considered opinion, the District Forum was right in directing the respondent to pay interest for the period from 18.09.2014 till closure of MIS account.  Since contrary to stand taken in its written reply filed before the District Forum, the respondent in its appeal has stated that interest in MIS Account, upto 30.09.2014 stood paid, it is clarified that subject to the same being factually correct, the liability of the opposite party/respondent shall be limited to interest, from 01.10.2014 to 13.10.2014 only.
17.       The appellant has brought on record copies of passbooks issued to him vide Annexure B (in respect of account under Senior Citizen Savings Scheme) and also relevant clause mentioned at the back of savings bank account passbook (Annexure A), on which, conditions governing Senior Citizen Savings Scheme and Monthly Income Scheme have been mentioned. The respondent alongwith its reply placed on record copy of the passbook issued to the appellant in respect of savings bank account, on which, conditions relating to monthly income scheme account and senior citizen savings scheme account are mentioned. In the absence of any stipulation in the passbooks issued to the appellant, for MIS and SCSS accounts, he was under a bonafide belief that no penalty was liable to be imposed upon him, in case he withdrew amount before the stipulated period of 6 years. Also, no undertaking to this effect was got signed from the appellant at the time of opening of Accounts. On the other hand, the respondent has relied upon the conditions regarding imposition of penalty in the case of pre-mature withdrawal stipulated in the savings bank passbook Account. Such reliance, in our considered opinion, is not justified. Even, as per RBI Guidelines and considering the fact that many banking institutions do not impose any such penalty, the imposition of penalty was unjustified and unfair. The appellant (a senior citizen) invested part of his lifelong earnings/savings after his retirement, in both the schemes, for social security, and in  absence of any undertaking having been obtained or in absence of making the appellant aware of such penalties, by imposing 1% cut, the respondent was deficient in rendering service. Therefore, the penalty in the sum of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.9000/- @ 1% of the invested amount was not justified and the appellant/complainant is entitled to the same. The District Forum did err in not appreciating the facts of the case correctly and wrongly denied this relief to the appellant/complainant. The order of the District Forum, therefore, needs to be modified.

            In the prayer clause, in the appeal, the appellant has prayed as under:-

“The plea of the appellant-cum-complainant kindly be allowed and the OP be directed to make the payment of 1% deducted amount in both the accounts amounting to Rs.9000/- + Rs.15000/- = Rs.24000/- along with up to date bank interest and with additional legal costs of Rs.10,000/-.”

            A perusal of the aforesaid prayer clearly shows that the relief claimed is not exaggerated but is, in fact, genuine and reasonable. In view of aforesaid discussions, the appeal bearing No.287 of 2015  is accepted with costs and the order of the District Forum is modified. The respondent/Opposite Party in appeal bearing No.287 of 2015 is directed to :-

1. Pay the interest for the period from 18th September, 2014 till closure of the account on the investment of Rs.9.00 lacs under MIS Account No.7858722 to the complainant, as awarded by the District Forum. (In case the interest upto 30.09.2014 has actually been paid as claimed by the respondent in its appeal, the interest for the period 01.10.2014 to 13.10.2014 be paid).
2. Pay a compensatory amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for causing him mental and physical harassment as well as towards litigation expenses, as awarded by the District Forum.
3. Pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- + Rs.9,000/- = Rs.24,000/- (deducted 1% of the invested amount) to the complainant, with 9% interest from the date of closure  of MIS and SCSSA on 13.10.2014 and 10.10.2014 respectively, when aforesaid amounts were deducted.
4. Pay additional amount of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant.
5. This order shall be complied with by the respondent/Opposite Party within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which, it shall be liable to pay interest @12% per annum on the amount mentioned in Clause (i), (ii) and (iv)  above, from the date of filing the complaint, and on amount mentioned in Clause (iii) from the date of closing of accounts,  till actual payment, besides costs of litigation.

18.       In view of  acceptance of First Appeal No.287 of 2015,  appeal bearing No.316 of 2015 filed by the appellant/opposite party, is dismissed with no order as to costs.
19.        Certified copy of this order be placed in First Appeal No.316 of 2015.
20.         Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
21.        The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

January   25, 2016.

                               Sd/-

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

[DEV RAJ]

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

[PADMA PANDEY]

MEMBER

Ad