Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/16/379

Gagan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Post Office - Opp.Party(s)

M.S.Sethi Adv.

09 Oct 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. : 379 of 16.05.2016

   Date of Decision            :  09.10.2017

 

1.Gagan (minor) grandson of late Nem Chand & s/o Jai Parkash Jain s/o Sh.Nem Chand r/o H.No.385, Ward No.9, Purani Mandi, Mullanpur, District Ludhiana through father as his next friend.

2.Jai Parkash Jain s/o Sh.Nem Chand r/o H.No.385, Ward No.9, Purani Mandi, Mullanpur, District Ludhiana.

….. Complainants

                                                            Versus       

 

1.The Sub Post Master, P.O.Mandi Mullanpur, District Ludhiana.

2.Department of Post, Head Post Office, Bharat Nagar Chowk, Ludhiana through SSP.

…Opposite parties

 

          (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH.PARAM JIT SINGH BEWLI, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainants             :         Sh.M.S.Sethi, Advocate

For Ops                           :         Sh.Darshan Gupta, Advocate

 

PER G.K DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                           Earlier, complaint No.237 of 2015 was decided against complainant no.2 by this Forum on 5.1.2016 by imposing cost of Rs.1000/-. It was held through those orders that if really the due amount of interest uptill December 2014 would not have been paid, then complainant would have disclosed the details of non-payment of the non paid interest amount. No mention of principal amount anywhere made in the complaint and as such, it was held as if the relief claimed by suppressing the material facts qua principal amount and due interest. Appeal against those orders was preferred before the Hon’ble State Commission. Hon’ble State Commission while deciding the First Appeal No.130 of 2016 on 15.2.2016, allowed the appeal by dismissing the complaint as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh complaint in the name of Gagan, minor through his next friend and as such, this complaint. Grandfather of the complainant no.1 Gagan had opened RD account No.598642 in his name with OP by paying Rs.1000/- per month. Grandfather of complainant no.1 and father of complainant no.2 had already expired. Complainants applied for withdrawal of amount in deposit of Rs.21,000/- along with accrued interest applicable on such RD account in March 2014 by complying with all the formalities. However, despite repeated visits made regularly for nine months by complainant no.2 to Ops for calling upon them to release the amount, they released the amount of Rs.22,488/- in favour of father of complainant no.1 in December 2014, but no interest of that period was given to the complainants. After serving legal notice dated 16.2.2015  upon Ops for calling upon them to pay interest for period from March to December 2014, this complaint filed for claiming damages on account of mental tension and physical harassment. In the previous complaint, Ops took the plea as if sum of Rs.22,488/- including principal amount of Rs.21,000/- and interest amount of Rs.1488/- till 27.12.2014 has been released vide cheque No.183418 dated 27.12.2014. It is claimed that such plea is false and incorrect because no calculation detail has been filed by Ops and further if deposited amount of Rs.21,000/- carries interest @8%, then the payable amount comes approximately to Rs.25,599/- till December 2014 i.e. for 30 months. Interest of Rs.1488/- paid, otherwise cannot be accepted as the correct calculations because interest if calculated @8% per annum on amount of Rs.21,000/- for period from March to December 2014, the same comes to Rs.1400. Therefore, Rs.88/- cannot be presumed to be the interest amount for deposit for period uptill March 2014. It is claimed that Ops have adopted unfair trade practice and provided deficient services. From perusal of letter dated 21.4.2015 sent to the complainant, it is made out as if interest at par with interest payable on saving bank account has been allowed, Prayer therefore, made for directing Ops to pay interest on amount of Rs.21,000/- as per spirit of letter dated 21.4.2015. Compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.50,000/-, but litigation expenses of Rs.5500/- more claimed.

2.                 In joint written reply submitted by Ops, it is pleaded interalia as if complaint is false and frivolous; earlier order passed by this Forum in the earlier complaint for directing the complainant to deposit Rs.1000/- as cost in Consumer Welfare Fund was not set aside in appeal by the Hon’ble State Commission and as such, in view of non-deposit of such cost of Rs.1000/-, complainants are not entitled to pursue the present complaint. Admittedly, Sh.Nem Chand had opened one individual RD account bearing No.598642 with the Post Office by nominating Gagan. After death of Sh.Nem Chand, complainant no.2 Sh.Jai Parkash applied for withdrawal of amount in March 2014 and he was required to complete the necessary formalities. Amount standing in the account of Sh.Nem Chand at the time of his death was amount of Rs.21,000/- is a matter of record. It is denied that interest for period from March 2014 to December 2014 has not been paid. Rather, in March 2014, when the complainant no.2 approached Ops, then he was informed about financial benefits accruing on the payment after maturity of five years period as applicable on RD account, but he chose to claim payment on maturity i.e. on or after 7.5.2017 and took away the passbook. However, later on in August 2014, the complainant again requested for pre-mature withdrawal and accordingly sanction was granted by Sub-Post Master, Dakha Mandi vide memo No.D-70 dated 30.8.2014. Complainant was informed accordingly. Despite that complainant attended the post office in the last week of December 2014, when payment of Rs.22,488/- consisting of principal amount of Rs.21,000/- and interest of Rs.1488/- as due upto 27.12.2014 was released to him. Complainant has received the entire payment on 21.12.2014. Legal notice dated 16.2.2015 alleged to be false and frivolous being not depicting the true picture. Therefore, there was no occasion for providing compensation on account of damages for mental or physical harassment as alleged. Account in question was opened on 7.5.2012 and the same was to continue uptill 7.5.2017. In view of request of pre-mature withdrawal , provisions contained in regulations 119(2) of Post Office Savings Bank Manual Vol-1 are attracted, which provides for payment of interest at par with interest payable on saving accounts. So, account to be treated as saving account for all purposes and interest has been correctly paid by the department. In fact, the department has paid the entire interest due on RD account and as such, there is no deficiency in service or adoption of unfair trade practice by Ops. Complainant cannot get benefit of any departmental action taken by the department against its employees because the parameter for deciding the departmental complaint is different, than the one           to be adopted by this Forum. It is claimed that complaint has been filed for abusing the process of law. Each and every other averment of the complaint denied. 

3.                 Counsel for complainants tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CA of complainant no.2 Sh.Jai Parkash Jain along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C11 and then counsel closed the evidence.

4.                 On the other hand, counsel for Ops tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA of Ms.Swaraj Kaur, Superintendent of Post Office, Muffsil Division, Ludhiana along with documents Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 and then closed the evidence.

5.                 Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties. Oral arguments by counsel for parties addressed and those were heard. Records gone through minutely. 

6.                 From the pleadings of the parties and contents of affidavits, it is made out as if principal amount of RD account in question was of Rs.21,000/-, but Rs.1488/- paid as interest on premature withdrawal of amount in question. Earlier complaint filed by the complainant no.2 was dismissed vide order dated 5.1.2016 passed by this Forum is a fact borne from the perusal of copy of that order placed on record as Ex.C2. It was held in para no.7 of order Ex.C2 that the complainant has not disclosed the split of due principal amount and interest amount on the date of maturity, but Ops have given the split of that amount in pleadings as well as through affidavit Ex.RA and as such, virtually interest on FDR has been paid up to 27.12.2014. Moreover, it was held in para no.8 of order Ex.C2 that in fact, consumer is Gagan and as such, complaint filed by Jai Parkash Jain without impleading him as the next friend or guardian is not maintainable. Cost of Rs.1000/- was ordered to be deposited by Jai Parkash Jain in Consumer Welfare Fund within 30 days and those costs have now been deposited vide receipt No.426403 dated 24.5.2017 as reflected by contents of order dated 24.5.2017 passed in this complaint. So, compliance of that part of order has been done and submission of Sh.M.S.Sethi, Advocate representing complainants has force in this respect. Those orders contained in Ex.C2 were challenged in Appeal and      Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh through Ex.C1 dismissed the appeal as withdrawn by giving liberty to complainant Jai Parkash Jain to file complaint in the name of Gagan(minor) through him as next friend and as such, this complaint filed in the name of Gagan through next friend, who is complainant no.2 also. So, virtually complaint is filed in accordance with the terms of order Ex.C1 passed by the Hon’ble State Commission.

7.       It is vehemently contended by Sh.Darshan Gupta, Advocate representing Ops   that interest upto 31.12.2014 payable on Saving bank account has already been paid in view of instructions contained in Ex.R2. Certainly, RD account in question was opened on 7.5.2012 and in view of maturity period of five years, the same was to continue upto 7.5.2017. Denial of this fact is not made by the complainants, albeit   the same pleaded in para no.5 of the written statement and affidavit Ex.RA of Ms.Swaraj Kaur, Superintendent of Ops. As the amount of Rs.22,488/- received by the complainants through Jai Parkash Jain on 29.12.2014 is a fact borne from the contents of Ledger account Ex.R1 and same even not denied by the complainants and as such, it is obvious that premature withdrawal of RD account took place.

8.                 After going through Regulation 119(2) of Post Office Savings Bank Manual-Volume I as contained in Ex.R2, it is made out that in case, premature withdrawal of RD account take place, then the interest payable will be as is payable in Savings Account of an individual. So, certainly submissions advanced by Sh.Darshan Gupta, Advocate for Ops has force that interest payable on the pre-mature withdrawal was payable at par with that of savings account.  Even contents of Ex.C3 shows as if claim Form for getting balance amount of Rs.21,000/- was submitted by complainant no.2 and that is why, disbursal of amount of Rs.22,488/- took place through receipt signed by the complainant no.2 on 21.12.2014 after receiving cheque Ex.C4 of amount of Rs.,22,488/-. Death of Sh.Nem Chand, the RD account holder took place on 6.1.2014 as borne from the contents of Ex.C5 and as the due amount not paid and that is why, legal notice Ex.C6 through postal receipt Ex.C7 was served. In view of this, it is vehemently contended by Sh.M.S.Sethi, Advocate for complainant that due amount has not been paid, but that submission has force only to the extent that in view of non-submission of calculation sheet by Ops, it cannot be worked out as to what rate of interest was paid to the complainants along with the principal amount of Rs.21,000/-. Even the interest payable on saving account not disclosed. In the absence of disclosure of saving account interest rate and the calculation sheet, it cannot be worked out as to whether the due amount as payable upto December 2014 actually has been paid to the complainants by Ops or not. Ops should have  produced the calculation sheet of calculated amount of interest by mentioning rate of interest therein with period, but that has not been done and as such, deficiency in service is only to that extent. However,    complainant no.2 Jai Parkash Jain  earlier dragged unnecessarily Ops in litigation and as such,  it is not fit and appropriate to allow any amount of compensation on account of mental harassment. Moreover, it is not the case of complainants that they called upon Ops at any point of time to deliver the calculation sheet disclosing the detail of amount of interest paid along with period, for which, the same paid and as such, fault lay with the complainant also in this respect, due to which, they are not entitled to any compensation amount. If Ops themselves would have supplied the calculation sheet of paid interest amount by mentioning rate of interest with period, for which, the interest calculated, then complainants may not have been goaded to file this complaint and as such, in view of lapse of Ops in not providing calculation sheet, it is fit and appropriate to allow litigation cost of Rs.2000/- in favour of complainants and against Ops by holding their liability as joint and several. No other relief required to be given to the complainants for their own fault in not seeking the calculation sheet through RTI or any other mode or by way of filing of an application for seeking such detail.

9.                 Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, complaint disposed of in terms that OPs will submit the calculation sheet of the paid interest of Rs.1488/- within 30 days from the date of receipt of order of this Forum, failing which they will be liable to pay compensation @ Rs.50/- per day for such default. Copies of this calculation sheet be also sent by OPs to complainant within above referred period. Only after going through calculation sheet, it can be made out if there is any deficiency or not and as such, no order as to compensation passed. Costs of litigation of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) allowed in favour of complainant and against OPs, whose liability for such payment held as joint and several. Payment of these costs be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

10.                         File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

 (Param Jit Singh Bewli)                                     (G.K.Dhir)

 Member                                                              President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:09.10.2017

Gurpreet Sharma.