DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 12th day of January, 2024
Present : Sri. Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt. Vidya A., Member
: Sri. Krishnankutty N.K., Member Date of Filing: 28/10/2022
CC/208/2022
Indira Devi A.B.,
W/o. Unnikrishnan U.P.,
Devisadan, Kavilpadu (PO),
Palakkad – 678 012. - Complainant
(By Adv. M/s K.Dhananjayan & V.R. Sivadasan)
Vs
1. The Post Master
Olavakkode HPO, Olavakkode,
Palakkad - 678 002.
2. The Senior Superintendent of Post Office
Head Post Office, Palakkad - 678 001.
3. The Post Master General, Northern Region
7QCG +7FH Kannoor Road,
West Nadakkavu, Kozhikode - 673 011.
4. The Chief Post Master General
Kerala Circle, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 033.
5. Government of India,
Rep. by Secretary, Ministry of Finance,
Department of Economic Affairs,
New Delhi.
6. The Chief Post Master General of India,
Government of India,
Office of the Chief Post Master General of India,
New Delhi.
7. Accountant General (A&E) Kerala, Trivandrum,
Rep by Branch Officer, Thrissur,
Karunakaran Nambiar Road, Thrissur- 680 020 - Opposite parties
(OPs 1 to 4 & 6 by Authorised Officer
OPs 5 & 7 Additional GP- III)
O R D E R
By Sri. Vinay Menon V., President
- Bare necessities in complainant’s pleadings for the purpose of judicial adjudication of the dispute is that the complainant remitted her retirement benefit of Rs. 12,86,000/- in the Senior Citizen’s Saving Scheme (SCSS) floated by the 1st OP on 26/02/2016. Initially the scheme carried an interest of 9.15% p.a. which was subsequently reduced to 7.4% p.a. She was availing the interest periodically. During 2022, the OP1 issued a communication to complainant stating that the SCSS account opened by the complainant was in contravention of Govt. Savings Promotion Rules 2018 / National Savings Scheme 2019. As no interest is admissible on the deposit in such account vide Rule 9(2) of GSPR 2018, the OP also directed the complainant to close the account and repay the interest amounts paid. Thereafter the O.P.s debited an amount of Rs. 7,41,359/- being the interest availed by her out of the proceeds of her retirement benefits.
This complaint is filed aggrieved by the conduct on the part of the OPs wherein the O.P.s unilaterally debited Rs.7,41,359/- seeking return of the said amount along with incidental and ancillary reliefs.
- OPs 1 - 4 and 6 filed joint version. They submitted that as per the Senior Citizen Saving Scheme Rules 2004, a depositor was to be retired on superannuation or otherwise on the date of opening of an account. The depositor was not retired on 26/02/2016 when the account was opened. It was only during an inspection carried out by OP3 during 2021 that a retirement certificate was sought for. The documents showed that complainant had retired from service only on 31/5/2016. Pursuant thereto, the complainant filed a request dated 25/9/2021 requesting regularization of the account (account being a joint account) by switching the serials of the depositors i.e. Sri. Unnikrishnan U.P., husband of the complainant, as the 1st depositor and the complainant as second depositor. As the account was already found to be irregular and more than 5 ½ years had elapsed since the date the account was opened, there was no scope for switching between the depositors. Therefore, the complainant was informed regarding the necessity for recuperation of the interest as per Govt. Saving Promotions Rules 2018. As the complainant did not turn up even after notice, the account was closed exparte on 15/10/2022 after recovering Rs.7, 41,359/- and residual amount of Rs. 5,44,641/- was deposited in the account of the complainant. On the foregoing factual matrix, the OPs 1 to 4 and 6 sought for dismissal of the complaint.
- Post appearance of parties, maintainability of complaint as against OPs 5 & 7 was heard in detail. As per order dated 5/5/2022, this Commission found that a dispute against OPs 5 & 7 will not lie before this Commission and the complaint as against them was dismissed.
- The following issues were framed for consideration:
- Whether OP7 is a necessary party to the complaint?
- Whether the complainant was eligible to open SCSS account as on 26/2/2016 as per the stipulated Rules of OPs?
- Whether the closing of the complainant’s account was as per Rules?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of OPs?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to any of the reliefs claimed?
6. Any other reliefs?
5. (i) Evidence comprised of proof affidavit and Exhibits A1 to A7.
(ii) Contesting OPs filed proof affidavit. Exts. B1 to B7 were marked. Marking of Ext.B5 was objected on the ground that it was a photocopy and that it forms part of a larger document. In the facts and circumstances of the case, even though we are disallowing the objection based on the ground that it is a photocopy, we are inclined to allow the objections based on the ground that it is only a part of a larger document. OP was directed to produce the entire document based on the objection raised by the complainant. But they failed to produce the same. Therefore, the objection raised by the complaint is sustained.
Issue No.1
6. This issue is already answered in paragraph No. 3 supra.
Issue Nos. 2 & 3
7. It was the case of contesting OPs that the account was not opened in accordance with rules pertaining to the Senior Citizen Savings Scheme Rules. Complainant received her retirement benefits even before her retirement. She produced her treasury pass book as evidence for opening her account.
8. Ext.B6 is a Savings Pass Book. Page 23 of the said document contains the definition of an individual who can avail the said scheme account. In order to open an account, the said individual shall be a person who attained the age of 60 years on the date of opening of the account. An individual who attained the age of 55 years or more but less than 60 years and who retired on superannuation or otherwise on the date of opening of account can also open the account within one month of the date of receipt of retirement benefit. Thus, we can see that the complainant should be a retiree on the date of opening of the account. Account was opened on 26/12/2016. Term of the account was further extended for a period of 3 years from 26/2/2021. Ext.B7 is the account opening form. Incidentally, it might be of interest to note that Ext. B7 application does not contain a column for showing the date of retirement.
9. It is the further case of the opposite parties that they came to know of this mistake sometime during 2021 when there was an inspection by the 3rd OP. Ext.B2, it seems from the subject, is a request for regularization of SCSS joint account. This communication shows that the complainant retired from service on 31/5/2016. Thus, we can see that the complainant has failed to fit in the description of a depositor under SCSS Account as she was not a retiree on the date of opening of the account.
10. Resultantly, it is only to be held that closure of the complainant’s account was as per Rules and the OP made some mistake, by oversight, while opening the said account during 2016.
Issue No. 4
11. Opposite parties has produced two orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which were marked as Ext.B8 & B9, gist of which is that a mistake on the part of staff of the department will not tantamount to be a deficiency as contemplated under the CP Act. We do find that there was an oversight on the part of the staff of the O.P.s in checking into the details of the retirement of the complainant. Yet, in view of the said observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we hold that in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.s in making the mistake while opening the account.
Issue No. 5
12. Complainant has sought for an order directing refund of the amount of Rs. 7, 41,359/- along with compensation and incidental and ancillary reliefs. But in view of the finding in Issue numbers 2 and 3, the complainant is not entitled to the aforesaid reliefs sought for in the relief portion of the complaint.
Issue No. 6
13. It goes without saying that the Commissions established under the Consumer Protection Act are free of the strait jackets that permeate the civil courts and are free to grant reliefs that are set to meet the interests of equity.
14. At the time of opening of the account, as can be seen from a perusal of Ext. B7, the complainant had not withheld any material facts. The said application form does not have a column for date of retirement. Prior to opening of the account, it was incumbent on the part of the officer handling the relevant section to verify the documents. But nothing of that sort is seen done. Per pleadings, it was only when an inspection was carried out during 2021, ie. more than 5 years later, that the office concerned became aware of the irregularity. Pursuant thereto, the O.P.s closed the account. While doing so they debited the amounts availed by the complainant as interest for 5 ½ years, amounting to Rs. 7, 41,359/-. Rest of the amount was credited in the account of the complainant.
15. It goes without saying that the amount deposited with the O.P.s by the complainant was not kept idle. Said amount formed the capital of the O.P.s for earning profits, by way of lending or by way of investing in accordance with the Government Policies. Since prudent banking policies mandate higher interest rates for lending amounts than the deposited amounts, the O.P.s have profited using the amounts deposited by the complainant.
16. After 5½ years, the O.P.s find that opening of the account under Senior
Citizen’s Scheme is irregular (not illegal) and takes back the entire amounts credited to the complainant as interest on the deposit. She is left in the lurch in her advanced age.
17. Bottom line is that O.P.s used the investment made by the complainant as zero cost capital. They gained interest out of the amounts deposited by the complainant without paying anything to the depositor, courtesy a ‘mistake’ on the part of their staff.
18. We find the conduct on the part of the O.P.s to be a vulgar abuse of the process of law and unbefitting magnanimity of the authority vested with them as an instrumentality of the State. The O.P.s have resorted to gross unjust enrichment at the expense of unsuspecting depositor. It is true that the account was opened by a mistake. But even the O.P.s admit that it was a mistake and irregularity and not an illegality.
19. Such a conduct on the part of a Government of India establishment is shocking and nothing short of Shylockian and pathetic. With no moral or legal qualms whatsoever, they have milked the maximum out of a senior citizen, leaving the senior citizen to suffer the losses for their mistakes and irregularities. O.P.s have stooped to the level of a loan shark or a usurer.
20. We hold that such a conduct tantamount to gross unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
21. We hold that the complainant is entitled to reasonable interest for deposits made by her with the O.P.s. Therefore, we dispose off this complaint with the following orders to be complied by O.P.s 1-4 and 6.
1. Complainant is entitled to interest on the entire amount of Rs. 12,86,000/-. Deposited with the O.P.s
2. The complainant shall be entitled to interest on this amount at the highest rate permissible for FDs as applicable from 26/02/2016. If the O.P.s are not having an FD scheme, they shall pay interest at the rate 2% less than the highest interest rate on their lending rates.
3. The said interests, as in Order 2, shall be calculated on Rs. 12,86,000/- from 26/02/2016 till the date of payment.
4. Any set off shall be permissible, if the interest in SCSS is higher than the rate payable for the interest rate of F.D. or to the rate which the complainant is entitled to according to the 2nd Order.
5. Difference of T.D.S. levied on SCSS and F.D., if any is due from the complainant, shall be borne by the O.P.s.
6. The O.P.s shall maintain proper record of accounts and calculations for the same and shall hand over the same to the complainant, if the complainant so desires.
7. In the event there is any dispute interse parties, the parties are at liberty to appear before this Commission by way of filing Execution Applications or Miscellaneous Application.
8. The complainant is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) for the unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P.s.
9. The complainant is entitled to Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh Only) as cost of the proceedings.
10. O.P.s shall comply with the above directives within 45 days from the date of receipt of this Order, failing which the O.P.s shall pay a solatium of Rs. 500/- per month or part thereof from 28/10/2022 (date of filing of this complaint) till date of compliance in entirety.
Pronounced in open court on this the 12th day of January, 2024.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya.A
Member
Sd/- Krishnankutty N.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 - Copy of GPF form G bearing No.100972
Ext.A2 – Original savings bank pass book
Ext.A3 - Copy of communication dated 5/9/2022
Ext.A4 - Copy of communication dated 12/9/2022
Ext.A5 – Copy of communication dated 6/9/2022
Ext.A6 – Copy of communication dated 25/9/2021
Ext.A7 – Copy of screenshot
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:
Ext.B1 – Printout of notification bearing No.GSR490(E) dated 2/8/2004 (incomplete)
Ext.B2 – Original of Ext.A6
Ext.B3 – Printout of Page 35 of some gazette. (incomplete)
Ext.B4 – Original of Ext.A3
Ext.B5 – Copy of manual (incomplete)
Ext.B6 – Savings Pass Book
Ext.B7 – Original post office savings bank account opening application form
Ext.B8 – Printout of order dated 1/5/1995 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
Ext.B9 – Printout of order dated 13/7/2011 in Civil Appeal No.4995/2006
Court Exhibit: Nil
Third party documents: Nil
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Court Witness: Nil
NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
