DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016
Case No.683/2012
1. Sh. Ram Bihari Gupta (H.U.F.) (Senior Citizen)
through its Karta Shri Ram Bihari Gupta 78 years old B-16, Kalindi Colony,
Ring Road, New Delhi-110065
2. Shri Ram Bihari Gupta
S/o Late Sh. Lala Pyare Lal
R/o B-16, Kalindi Colony,
Ring Road, New Delhi-110065 ….Complainants
Versus
1. Chief Post Master
Post Office Lodhi Road
New Delhi
2. Head Post Master
Post Office Lajpat Nagar
New Delhi ….Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 26.12.12 Date of Order : 17.07.17
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
ORDER
The case of the complainants, in nutshell, is that complainant No.1 HUF through complainant No.2 (Karta) opened a PPF Account No.7324 with OP No.2 under the PPF Act, 1986 with an initial deposit of Rs.4500/- and he had been making regular deposits every year by means of cheques in the PPF Account of complainant No.1. PPF Account was renewed after the expiry of period of 15 years w.e.f. 1990 to 2005 for another 5 years i.e. upto 2010 and for further period of 5 years i.e. upto 31.03.2015. The OP No.2 informed in April-May 2012 to the complainants that the PPF Scheme has now been stopped/suspended and, therefore, no deposit under the said scheme would be accepted by the OP No.2. The OPs had not informed before April-May, 2012 orally or in writing that the scheme had been suspended by the OPs. The complainants deposited Rs.70,000/- each in the year 2010 and also in the year 2011 which were accepted by the OP No.2 and these entries were reflected in the passbook. The complainants got the PPF Account closed in the year 2012. It is stated as follows:-
“13. That a bare perusal of the passbook issued by the opposite parties would go to show that as on 31.03.2011 an amount of Rs.57,496/- was credited to the complainants in the said passbook on account of interest payable for the financial year ending on 31.03.2011. Similarly an amount of Rs.69,400/- was credited in the said passbook as interest payable for the financial year ending on 31.03.2012.”
The OPs issued cheque No.406867 for an amount of Rs.794537/- which was received by the complainants with the specific endorsement that the said cheque had been accepted without prejudice to the rights to recover the balance of the amount due to them against the OPs. The amount of Rs.794537/- had been calculated by the OPs after withholding two amounts of Rs.57496/- and Rs.69400/- totalling to Rs.126896/- i.e. the amounts of interest which were credited in the said account on 31.03.2011 and 31.03.2012 respectively. Thus, withholding of the amount of Rs.126896/- is absolutely illegal and an act of deficiency in service on behalf of the OPs. The complainants are also entitled for interest on the amount of Rs.126896/- from the OPs w.e.f. 31.03.2012. Complainants have filed the present complaint for directing the OPs to pay Rs.126896/- illegally withheld by the OPs, Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and litigation charges of Rs.25,000/- and interest on the amount of Rs.126896/- @ 18% w.e.f. 31.03.2012 till the date of actual payment.
In the written statement OPs have inter alia stated that the PPF (HUF) Account No.3960 was opened at New Delhi GPO on 28.03.1990 in the name of Sh. Ram Bihari Gupta Gupta (HUF) with an initial deposit of Rs.4500/- and the said account was transferred from New Delhi to Lajpat Nagar on 18.10.1994 under the account jurisdiction of the H.O. and new PPF account No. 7324 was allotted after rounding of the old number in the passbook. After its transfer the account was continued with regular deposit every year. The account had completed 15 years in the year 2005 and it was extended for another 5 years i.e. upto 31.03.2010 and the account holder continued to deposit in the said account. The Ministry of Communication & IT, Department of Posts, New Delhi vide letter No. 32-01/2010-SB dated 13.12.10 clearly enjoins that as per GSR 286(E) dated 13.05.05 circulated vide SB order No.10/2004 dated 23.06.05, only individuals can open PPF account from 13.05.05. A further clarification was issued vide then DDG (FS)D.O letter No.113-10/2004-SB dated 05.09.05 and again reiterated vide SB Order No.20/2005 dated 14.11.2005 that existing PPF accounts opened in the name of HUF prior to 13.05.2005 would continue till maturity and enjoy all facilities available under earlier rules but their maturity period cannot be extended further after 13.05.2005. Now MOD (DEA) vide GSR 956(E) dated 07.12.2010 has amended paragraph 9 of PPF Scheme rules by adding a provision below sub-paragraph (3) of this paragraph according to which from 07.12.2010, the position of PPF accounts opened in the name of HUF prior to 13.05.2005 will be as follows:
“PPF accounts opened in the name of HUF prior to 13.05.2005 will be closed on maturity i.e. 31st March, of the 16th Financial Year from the year in which account was opened. No further interest will be admissible.
PPF accounts opened in the name of HUF prior to 13.05.2005 but have already been matured but not yet closed, shall be closed on 31st March, 2011 after which no further interest shall be admissible.”
It is further stated as under:-
“A clarification in this regard is also received vide Govt. of India/M/O Communication & IT Department of Posts SB Order No.03/2013 vide letter No.32-01/2013 SB dated 12.03.2013 received vide APMG (IT & FS) SB & CC/SB Ruling/2012 dated 18.03.2013 vide which it is clear that those accounts which have been matured after 13.05.2015, no interest is to be credited for 2011-2012 and onwards.”
It is submitted that it is clear that those accounts which have been matured after 13.05.05 no interest will be credited for 2011-2012 onwards. The above account inadvertently extended for 5 years i.e. 31.03.15 by Lajpat Nagar PO and the same was extended by the H.O. because of non-mentioning of HUF account in the ledger. It came to the notice of the HO that this account is HUF account when the above account was received for closing alongwith passbook. Keeping in view the above notification, “PPF account was opened in the name of HUF prior to 13.05.05 but have already been matured but not yet closed shall be closed on 31.03.2011 after which no interest was admissible as such PPF account was required to be closed on 21.07.2012 with the following details:-
i. Amount deposit upto 31.03.010 Rs.6,54,537/-
ii. Amount interest admissible upto 31.03.11 Rs.52,363/-
iii. Amount refunded which was deposited
in contravention of said notification Rs.1,40,00/-
total amount to be paid Rs.8,46,900/-
The amount at the time of closing was paid Rs.794537/- (Rs.654537 + Rs.140000) as per withdrawal form SB-7. According to the OPs the amounts of Rs.70,000/- + Rs.70,000/- were deposited in contravention of the above notification and, hence, no interest is admissible on these amounts. It is stated that OPs are liable to pay Rs.52,363/- as interest for the year 2011-2012 only.
Complainants have filed a rejoinder. In the rejoinder complainants have stated that they accepted the payment of Rs.794537/- without prejudice to their rights to claim the balance amount of Rs.126896/- and they made a note on the withdrawal form that they were accepting this payment without prejudice to their rights. Now the OPs have atleast admitted their liability of Rs.52363/- which amount has not been paid by them to the complainants.
Affidavit of complainant No.2 has been filed in evidence on behalf of the complainant. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. Ashok Kr., Sr. Postmaster has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OPs.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
We have heard the oral arguments on behalf of the Complainants and have also carefully gone through the file.
Admittedly the complainants had opened a PPF account with the OP No.2 for 15 years wef. 1990 to 2005 and renewed for 5 years upto 2010. After 31.03.2010 the complainant requested the OP for further extension of the account for 5 years i.e. upto 31.05.2015 which was accepted and the account was renewed till the year 2015. The OP No.2 informed the complainants in the month of April-May 2012 that the PPF scheme had now been stopped/suspended and, therefore, no deposit under the said scheme would be accepted by the OP No.2. The OP issued a cheque No.406867 for an amount of Rs.794537/- in the name of the complainants for full and final settlement which was accepted by the complainants without prejudice to their rights. The OPs themselves admitted in the written statement that an amount of Rs.52,363/- as interest admissible upto 31.03.2011 was not paid to the complainants.
As per OPs’ themselves the notification in question is dated 13.12.2010. Inspite of that they extended the PPF Account of the complainants till the year 2015. The explanation given in this behalf is that the fact that the said account was an HUF Account was not mentioned in the ledger and it came to the notice of the H.O. only when an application for closing the same was received alongwith the passbook. This is a very surprising fact that the officials of the OPs who are given a great responsibility of handling with public money including issuance of NSC, PPF Accounts etc. work in such a negligent, careless and irresponsible manner which clearly amounts to dereliction of duty on the part of the OPs. Such public authorities must act with all due diligence. Such acts cannot be said to have been done under a bonafide mistake. By extending the validity of the PPF Account in question till the year 2015 the complainants had been given an impression that they were free to deposit further amounts in the year 2011 and 2012 and accordingly the complainants deposited Rs.70,000/- each in these two years. The OPs cannot escape their liability on the ground that its officials were not vigilant or that they had acted in good faith. Without any impunity the OPs also showed the amount of interest for the period till 31.03.2011 and 31.03.2012 as Rs.57496/- and Rs.69400/- respectively. It means that the officials of the OPs were not acting in good faith and had been doing the work in a very careless manner. Without saying much more about the conduct of the officials of the OPs we hold that the OPs are guilty of deficiency in service.
In view of the above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to pay Rs.52,363/- to the complainants alongwith 6% interest from the date of filing of the complaint till realization, Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards the cost of ligation within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which OPs shall become liable to pay Rs.52363/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 17.07.17.
