AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 08.08.2018 of the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad in CMA no. 624 of 2016.
The facts leading to the present revision petition are that the respondent deposited Rs.69,500/- on 04.04.2005 and another amount of Rs.69,500/-was deposited on 31.03.2006 by way of cheque in his PPF account. Though there was no objection from the postal department earlier, however, later on after an audit objection, the postal department wrote to the complainant to return the amount of interest credited in the account on the amount deposited in excess of Rs.70,000/- in the year 2005-2006. Complaint was filed by the respondent/ complainant before the District Forum and the same was resisted by the petitioner on the ground that as per the rules of the PPF Scheme, the date of deposit of cheque is to be treated as date of deposit of the amount, if the cheque is cleared. On this basis of this rule it was stated that the amount more than Rs.70,000/- were deposited in the Financial Year 2005-2006. However, the District Forum has given a finding that the petitioner was deficient in its service and the complaint was allowed and interest was allowed to be retained by the respondent.
Petitioner preferred an appeal before the State Commission being CMA no. 624 of 2016. The State Commission agreed with the order of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal.
Hence, the present revision petition.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at the admission stage. Learned counsel argued that the rule position in this regard is very clear that the date of deposit of cheque is to be taken as date of deposit of the amount. Therefore, as the cheque was deposited on 31.03.2006, the amount will be treated as deposited on 31.03.2006, though the cheque was cleared on 03.04.2006. The view taken by the complainant as well as by the State Commission is that the cheque was cleared on 03.04.2006 and therefore, the amount only came to the petitioner's department on 03.04.2006 and therefore, it cannot be counted as subscription for the year 2005-2006.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that both the fora below have not considered this rule position and passed erroneous orders.
I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and have carefully examined the record in the present case. The first amount of Rs.69,500/ was deposited on 04.04.2005 whereas the second amount was deposited by way of cheque on 31.03.2006. PPF rule clearly states that the amount will be credited when the cheque is cleared however, it further states that the date of deposit of cheque shall be treated as date of deposit of amount. Clearly this rule has been made for the benefit of the consumer so that consumer does not lose interest for the period lost in the clearance of the cheque. Obviously, the same rule cannot be applied to the detriment of the consumer. Moreover, in response to a query the learned counsel informed that the amount deposited in 2006-2007 does not go beyond Rs.70,000/- if the cheque amount is also included in the year 2006-2007 though the copy of the pass book has not been filed by the petitioner. It is common that normal customers of the postal department may not be aware of the rule position and the rule book is not supplied to each account holder. Moreover, the general understanding is that the cheque is credited on the date it is cleared and the exception has been made in the PPF rules to benefit the consumer. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been made to give better protection to the consumer and therefore, the rule made for benefit of the consumer cannot be applied to the detriment of the consumer. Hence, in my view, this particular amount of Rs.69,500/- deposited by way of cheque is to be treated as the amount deposited on 03.04.2006 in the Financial Year 2006-2007 in the PPF Account and therefore, I do not see any error in the orders passed by the Fora below.
Based on the above discussion, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order dated 08.08.2018 passed by the State Commission warranting interference from this Commission. Accordingly, revision petition no.794 of 2019 is dismissed at the admission stage.