AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.K. Jain, J
The respondent which is an HUF, opened a PPF Account in a Post Office on 19.03.1990. The said account was for a duration of 15 years. On completion of the aforesaid 15 years period, the account was extended two times, the aggregate period of extension being from 04.07.2005 to 19.06.2010. When the complainant approached the Post Office for withdrawal of the balance amount in the account, he came to know that interest had not been credited in the said account after 31.03.2005. Being aggrieved, he approached the concerned District Forum by way of a Consumer Complaint. It also had a grievance about non-credit amount of Rs.500/- which it had deposited with the Post Office.
The complaint was resisted by the petitioner which inter-alia stated in its reply that extension of the PPF Account opened in the name of an HUF was invalid and it was so pointed out to the Post Office in the audit report dated 09.02.2013.
The District Forum having allowed the Consumer Complaint, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal also having been dismissed, the petitioner is before this Commission.
The issue involved in this petition is no more res integra and is squarely covered by the decision of this Commission in RP No. 3578 of 2017 Senior Superintendent of Post Offices & Anr. Vs. M/s Pankaj Kansal & Sons, HUF & Anr. & connected matters decided on 13.12.2017 as also by the subsequent decision dated 17.01.2018 in RP No.1219 of 2016 Indian Postal Department & Anr. Vs. Hanuman Das Nathani & connected matters.
The decision of this Commission in M/s Pankaj Kansal & Sons (supra), to the extent it is relevant, reads as under:
By the said order, while affirming the finding arrived at by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Ludhiana (for short "the District Forum") in its orders, all dated 22.03.2017, in Consumer Complaints No. 739/2015, 738/2015 and 35/2016, to the effect that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioners herein in not paying any interest on the amounts deposited by the Respondents/Complainants in the Public Provident Fund Accounts, opened by them in the names of their respective Hindu Undivided Families (HUFs), the State Commission has reduced the rate of interest from 9% p.a., as payable on the deposits made in the said accounts, to 6% p.a. For affirming the afore-noted finding, the State Commission has drawn support from the decision of this Commission in Revision Petition No. 2180 of 2004 (Sr. Post Master v. Arvind Industries), wherein it had been held that a similarly situated account holder was entitled to interest @ 6% p.a., and not at the normal rate of interest payable on such deposits.
Ld. Counsel appearing for the Petitioners submits that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhagwati Vanaspati Traders v. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Meerut, (2015) 1 SCC 617, the view taken by the Fora below deserves to be reversed.
Having carefully perused the said judgment, we are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the Ld. Counsel. In our view, the said decision, infact, upholds the view taken by this Commission in the afore-noted decision as also in a subsequent decision, dated 15.07.2015, in Revision Petition No. 1679 of 2015 (Chief Post Master General & 2 Ors. V. Govarmal Chhabaldas Israni). In the said decisions, it has been held that since the acceptance of the deposits in the accounts in question was clearly a mistake on the part of the officials of the Post Office, the Complainants could not be made to suffer on account of the same, more so, when the money deposited in such accounts always remained in the coffers of the Petitioners and used by them. It has been observed that if there was some technical hitch in the opening of such accounts, the Post Office ought not to have opened and continued such accounts and should have returned the amounts to the depositors. In those cases, the Post Offices were directed to pay interest to the depositors @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the Complaints. A similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhagwati Vanaspati Traders (Supra). It has been authoritatively held that the Postal Authorities, having permitted the Complainant in that case to purchase the NSC in the year 1995, could not have legitimately raised a challenge of irregularity after the maturity and when the authorities concerned had issued a certificate, which they could not have issued, they cannot be allowed to enrich themselves by retaining the deposit made, albeit when the transaction was sham or wholly illegal, which, like in that case, is not the case here.
The above referred decision was followed in Hanuman Das Nathani (supra) to which the petitioners were also parties.
For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned orders are modified to the extent that the petitioners shall be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum from the date on which the PPF Account had matured, till the date on which the principal amount is/was refunded to it. The Revision Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
The amount which the petitioner had deposited in compliance of the interim order of this Commission, shall be refunded to the petitioners after they have complied with this order.