AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
-APPEAL No. 67/2007 filed by Senior Superintendent of Post Office and Post Master, Chembur is directed against the order dated 10. 10. 2006 passed by Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Forum in consumer complaint No. 376/2003 and Appeal No. 2503/2006 filed by org. complainants is directed against the same order for reliefs not granted by the Forum below.
WE heard Mr. A. V. Patwardhan, Advocate for org. complainants and Mr. C. N. Mani, Advocate for the Postal Department. Mr. Ascharya Lal Sadana and Mrs. Lajwanti Sadana invested Rs. 4,08,000 in MIS Scheme of Postal Department on 15. 4. 1998 (Account No. 13337 ). Mr. Anshul Sadana and Mr. Ascharya Lal Sadana invested Rs. 4,08,000 in MIS Scheme of Postal Department on 17. 4. 1998 (Account No. 13347 ). Mr. Aseem Sadana and Mrs. Lajwanti Sadana invested Rs. 4,08,000 in MIS Scheme of Postal Department on 15. 4. 1998 (Account No. 13336 ). The agreed rate of interest was 13% p. a.
As per rules, Mr. Ascharya Lal Sadana and Mrs. Lajwanti Sadana cannot invest amount jointly more than Rs. 4,08,000. After realizing the mistake in the month of May 1998, the Postal Department without using fresh stationery rectified the mistake in the old Passbooks. As per rectification, Mr. Ascharya Lal Sadana and Mr. Nand Lal Sadana are shown as joint account holders of Account No. 13337. Mr Anshul Sadana and Mr. Lajwanti Sadana are shown as joint account holders of Account No. 13347. Mr. Aseem Sadana and Mrs. Sejal Sadana are shown as joint account holders of Account No. 13336. Each account was within the prescribed limit meant for the joint account holders under the MIS Scheme. This rectification/regularization was made by the Postal Department. The Postal Department paid interest @ 13% p. a. to the joint account holders for period of four years without any objection. We are told that Account No. 13336 is settled by the Postal Department.
JOINT account holders shifted from Chembur to Andheri. Therefore, they applied for transfer of joint accounts to Andheri. The Postal Department did not transfer the joint accounts and raise objection to the effect that the accounts should have been closed as per Rules in the month of May 1998 when the mistake was noticed. The Postal Department locked all the joint accounts and asked the joint account holders to refund interest amount of Rs. 1,03,870. According to the Postal Department, joint account holders are not entitled to get interest to the tune of Rs. 1,03,870. Therefore, the joint account holders filed consumer complaint in the Forum below. The said complaint was resisted by the Postal Department mainly on the ground that the complainants/joint account holders opened the joint accounts contrary to the Rules and Regulations. The correct procedure for rectification of mistake was to close the accounts and to refund the principal amount deducting the interest, if paid. It is specifically mentioned in the written statment, particularly in Para Nos. 4 and 7 that there is no provision for regularization or substitution of the names. It is also stated in the written statement that the investigation was started to find out mistake committed by unknown person. The Forum below allowed the complaint and directed the Postal Department to transfer all the three joint accounts to Andheri within period of one month. The Forum below however did not grant any relief in respect of interest, refund of principal amount and compensation for deficiency. Therefore, org. complainants have filed Appeal No. 2503/2006. The Postal Department has filed Appeal No. 67/2007. The stand taken by the Postal Department does not appeal to the reasons. Such type of mistake cannot be rectified as a strange proposition. Every mistake has a remedy. The mistake committed by the joint account holders when brought to the notice of the Postal Department was immediately rectified by using old Passbooks. The mistake was regularized by Postal Department itself. The names of Mr. Ascharya Lal Sadana and Mrs. Lajwanti Sadana stands deleted from Passbooks. This rectification was made by the Postal Department by making suitable changes using red ink in the Passbooks. The common name of joint account holder to which objection was raised stands deleted. Correct entries made. After rectification, Mr. Ascharya Lal Sadana and Mr. Nand Lal Sadana are shown to have held joint account No. 1337. Mr. Anshul Sadana and Mrs. Lajwanti Sadana are shown to have held joint account No. 133347. Mr. Aseem Sadana and Mrs. Sejal Sadana are shown to have held joint account No. 13336. This rectification was made in May 1998. It is material to note that the Postal Department acted upon the rectification and paid interest to all the joint account holders for period of four years in succession. The subsequent stand taken by the Postal Department is contrary to their own act of rectification. The subsequent Post Master should have honoured the rectification, which was carrid out in May 1998. When the mistake was realized, the joint accounts holders immediately moved the Postal Department for rectification of the joint accounts. It was the duty of the Postal Department to follow the prescribed procedure and to issue fresh Passbooks with new account numbers. Failure to do so is a deficiency on the part of Postal Department. The innocent persons cannot be blamed for the act of Post Master, who rectified the mistake.
THERE is reference of investigation to fix responsibility in para 7 of the written statement. The consumer complaint was filed in 2003. If really the investigation was done, nothing prevented the Postal Department from placing on record the ultimate result of the investigation. Nothing that sort was done by the Postal Department. There is nothing on record to show that any fraud was perpetrated by the employee of the Postal Department in collusion with the complainants. Moreover, no financial loss is caused to the Postal Department by deletion and substitution of names in the old Passbooks. Rectification in the old Passbooks can be treated as new concluded contract. It is to be noted that amount invested in three joint accounts did not exceed the limit prescribed by the Law. Under the circumstance, the Forum below should have directed the Postal Department to refund the principal amount. The Forum below should have also granted compensation to the complainants for deficiency in service. We are told during the course of argument that the Postal Department has paid interest to the joint account holders for period of four years and refused to pay interest for remaining two years. The complainants, therefore, are entitled to get interest @ 13% p. a. for the remaining period of two years. The learned Advocate Mr. Mani brought to our notice the judgment of the State Commission in consumer complaint No. 143/2002 decided on 21. 2. 2006 which is confirmed by the National Commission. We carefully perused the judgment in the case of Capt. Vijay Kulkarni. The facts of the said case are different than the facts of the present case. The ratio of Capt. Vijay Kulkarni cannot be, therefore, passed into service. We, therefore, hold that the complainants (Mr. Ascharya Lal Sadana and Mr. Nand Lal Sadana) are entitled to get Rs. 6,00,000 [principal amount of Rs. 4,08,000 + unpaid interest for the period of 2 years i. e. Rs. 1,10,500 + interest @ 6% p. a. on the principal amount from the date of maturity i. e. 15. 4. 2004 till the date of order Rs. 81,600] in respect of Account No. 13337. The complainants (Mr. Anshul Sadana and Mrs. Lajwanti Sadana) are also entitled to get Rs. 6,00,100 [principal amount of Rs. 4,08,000 + unpaid interest for the period of 2 years i. e. Rs. 1,10,500 + interest @ 6% p. a. on the principal amount from the date of maturity i. e. 17. 4. 2004 till the date of order Rs. 81,600] in respect of Account No. 13347. However, the Postal Department has paid Rs. 5,90,716 by cheque No. 415128 dated 23. 4. 2007 to the complainants (Mr. Ascharya Lal Sadana and Mr. Nand Lal Sadana) in respect of Account No. 13337 and Rs. 3,23,510 by cheque No. 415129 dated 23. 4. 2007 to the complainants (Mr. Anshul Sadana and Mrs. Lajwanti Sadana) in respect of Account No. 13347.
THE learned Advocate Mr. Patwardhan for the complainant during the course of arguments submitted that the Postal Department be directed to pay amount of bonus. The original contract is not placed on record. Under the circumstance, close scrutiny of terms and conditions of the contract with regard to bonus is, therefore, required before grant of bonus. However, the Postal Department in their written statement, particularly in para 3 clearly mentioned that the investor is entitled to get interest as notified plus bonus on investment on maturity. We are, therefore, directed the Postal Department to pay bonus to the complainant as per rules of MIS Scheme of Postal Department. In the result, we pass the following Order: ORDER 1 Appeal No. 67/2007 filed by the Postal Department stands dismissed with cost of Rs. 2,000 to be paid to the respondents/org. complainants. 2. Appeal No. 2503/2006 is allowed. 3. The Postal Department is directed to pay Rs. 9,384 in respect of Account No. 13337 and Rs. 2,76,590 in respect of Account No. 13347 to the complainants within 30 days from receipt of the order. 4. The Postal Department is also directed to pay bonus to the complainants as per rules of MIS Scheme of Postal Department. 5. The Postal Department is further directed to pay Rs. 10,000 as compensation to the complainants. 6. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties. Ordered accordingly.