CHIEF POST MASTER vs Prem Sagar Kukreja

COUNSEL for the petitioner present. Arguments heard. Sh. Prem Sagar Kukreja alongwith his mother Smt. Sushila Devi opened a joint Monthly Income Scheme account , which is popularly known as MIS account, for a sum of Rs.84,000/ - on 15.09.1997 with the Post Master, Post Office, Rajender Nagar, New Delhi -OP -1. Another account was opened on 25.10.1996. It is also commented that firstly MIS was brought in the name of Smt. Sushila Devi and the name of Prem Sagar Kukreja was introduced subsequently. Both the accounts were to mature on 14.09.2003 and 25.10.2003 respectively.

IN the meantime, the complainant asked for pre -mature release of the amounts but those were not released. In the meantime complainant''s brother Sh. Govind Ram filed a civil suit and claimed share in MIS accounts. Since the objection was raised by Sh. Govind Ram, therefore, the money was not paid to him. Thereafter, in the meantime, Smt. Sushila Devi also passed away. However, on the joint request of the LRs of the deceased, including Sh. Govind Ram, money was paid in favour of the complainant.

COUNSEL for the petitioners submits that the amount was paid after the decision of the Civil suit. He also brings to our notice that the Post Office was one of the parties before the Civil Court. However, the amount was given after the delay of 8 years i.e. on 08.05.2009. The District Forum allowed the complaint filed by the complaint and directed that the OPs would pay interest @ 8% on the amount lying with them, as they had withheld that amount. The State Commission confirmed the order passed by the District Forum.

WE have heard the counsel for the petitioner. He has drawn our attention towards The Post Office (Monthly Income Account Rules, 1987). Para No. 9A runs as follows: - "9A. Post -maturity interest : - Where repayment of the amount, inclusive of Bonus under rule 9 has become due but has not been made, interest shall be allowed on the amount due for a maximum period of two year from the date of maturity to the date of repayment of the amount subject to the following conditions, namely : (a) The interest shall be simple and shall be calculated at the rate applicable from time to time to savings account of the type of single or joint account. (b) For the purpose of payment off interest, any part of the period which is less than one month shall be ignored. (c) The interest shall be paid to the depositor in lump sum at the time of repayment of amount due."

THIS rule is not applicable in this case. Here, no fault can be attributed on the part of the complainant. The money was withheld by the Post Office itself, illegally. Post office also used the money for eight years. Even after a case was pending against the Post Office, it should have paid the amount to the complainant and asked for some Indemnity Bond. It should have paid the amount in the Court itself. It appears that they did not make any application in the Civil Court. They have utilized the same and they have to pay. The complainant suffered for a period of eight years. Our attention was not invited towards any stay order or any other direction from Civil Court.

WE see no merits in these arguments and dismiss the Revision Petition.