Navalmal Dhanraj Goyal vs Chief Officer, Zonal Office, Bank of India, Employment Chowk, Solapur

THIS revision petition has been filed by the subscribers, six in number, to the Scheme of Public Provident Fund (for short PPF) against the order dated 11th of September, 2008 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (for short State Commission), by which the relief granted to them by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Solapur (for short District Forum) has been set at naught on an appeal challenging the order of the District Forum filed by the respondents/opposite parties.

THERE is a delay of 11 days in filing the revision petition, which, for the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay, is condoned. Allegations, as made by the petitioners/complainants, are that while their PPF accounts were to mature on 26th of March, 2005 they were not informed about it either by the respondents/opposite parties or by their agent, through whom regular deposits were made. On the contrary, on the advice of their agent, the petitioners/complainants made further deposits in their PPF accounts for the year 2005-2006 i.e. for the 16th year as well. When, however, request was made for the payment of the maturity amount, the petitioners/complainants, to their dismay, were informed that they will not be entitled to any interest after the date of maturity i.e. from 26th of March, 2005 and further that the amount deposited during the year 2005-2006 will also bear no interest.

Aggrieved thereupon, a consumer complaint came to be filed before the District Forum, who, holding the respondents/opposite parties to have used the money deposited by the petitioners/complainants after maturity of the PPF accounts, ordered them to pay interest @ 9% for the period from 26th of March, 2005 to 25th of April, 2006 and further pay interest @ 9% for the period of 2005-2006 on the amount accepted by them beyond the maturity. It further awarded a cost of Rs.500/- and directed the respondents/opposite parties to comply with its order within a period of thirty days, failing which interest @ 12% was to be imposed. When this order of the District Forum was challenged in appeal by the respondents/opposite parties, the State Commission held the order passed by the District Forum to be absolutely illegal and bad in law and set it aside; thereby dismissing the complaint.

WE have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the PPF Scheme, 1968. Learned counsel for the petitioners/complainants would urge before us that the State Commission failed to appreciate that the respondents/opposite parties and their agent were deficient in rendering service to the petitioners/complainants as none of them, being fully aware of the statutory provisions regarding the PPF Scheme cared to inform the petitioners/complainants about the maturity date or procedure for extension of the PPF accounts by blocks of five years. The petitioners/complainants were, under the circumstances, deprived of an informed choice, which has resulted in the loss of their interest on the deposits. The State Commission further failed to appreciate that the petitioners/complainants were lured by their agent to deposit the amount even during the 16th year and, therefore, they were vicariously liable for the acts of the their agent. Learned counsel has, therefore, submitted that the District Forum had rightly held them to have been deficient in rendering service and has rightly allowed interest on the deposits as they had utilized the same during this period. The State Commission order, under the circumstances, very much deserves to be interfered with, the learned counsel submits. Per contra, learned for the respondents/opposite parties has justified the order of the State Commission, stating that the order is based on the correct interpretation of the rules on the subject and there is no occasion for this Commission to interfere therewith in its revisional jurisdiction. Having considered the arguments advanced by the parties, we can only sympathise with the petitioners/complainants. A consumer fora cannot amend or expand the provisions of a scheme which will have to be given the weightage of a contract, binding the parties to the terms of the scheme. The consumer fora can entertain a dispute only if prima facie deficiency is noticed within the confines of the scheme. Clause 9(3A) and (3B) of the PPF Scheme prescribe that a subscriber can continue to make deposits after the maturity of a PPF account for one or more further blocks of five years without any loss of benefit. But for this purpose, he will have to give his option in writing in Form-H within one year from the date of maturity of the PPF account. From the facts of this case, however, it is seen that the petitioners/complainants had not given any such option. Their failure to give the option and then continue to make deposits in the PPF account, therefore, has been rightly held to be irregular and not entitled to the benefit under the scheme.

THE contention of the petitioners/complainants that the respondents/opposite parties and their agent never informed them with regard to the restrictive provisions of the scheme will have to be rejected for the simple reason that the petitioners/complainants have been making deposit to the PPF account over a prolonged period of 15 years and it was expected of them to have gone through the provisions of the scheme or enquired about it from their agent, through whom they were making the deposits. In any case ignorance with regard to the details of the scheme cannot be made a ground for deficiency on the part of the respondents/opposite parties. THE State Commission has rightly dismissed the complainant on the basis of correct interpretation of the scheme and there being no illegality or irregularity, we find no occasion to interfere with its order. THE Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed, however, with no order as to cost.