Rashbehari Roy and others (since dead) substituted by Tapanesh Ray vs Union of India and others

This appeal is by the plaintiffs. The suit was for realization of Rs.12,250/- from the defendants.

The case of the plaintiffs is that Dr.Prafulla Chandra Ray created a Trust known as ""Prafulla Ray Education Trust Fund"" with the initial amount of

Rs.30,000/-. The said amount was kept in the Defence Savings Certificate for ten years. The amount was withdrawn. A sum of Rs.35,000/- was

invested on 18.2.1976 in Postal Time Deposit for five years in A/c.No.1004602 at Telenga Bazar Post Office. The rate of interest was 10% per

annum. For the first four years, an amount of Rs.14,000/- was paid by the Post Office. The same was received by the Secretary of the Trust. The

deposit was matured on 19.2.1981. The matured amount was payable with interest. The application for withdrawal was forwarded by the Telenga

Bazar Post Office to the Chandni Chowk Head Post Office. Thereafter it was disclosed that the plaintiffs were not entitled to receive interest at the

rate of 10% on the time of deposit since the money was deposited in the Telenga Bazar Post Office, which was not authorized to accept the said

time deposit. According to the plaintiffs, had the said fact been disclosed to them at the time of making deposit, then they could have deposited the

said amount in some other Post Offices to get more interest. With this factual scenario, they instituted the suit claiming interest.

Defendant no.1 filed written statement stating, inter alia, that the plaintiffs were entitled to get interest at the rate of 3% per annum as the deposit

was made in Telenga Bazar Post Office. The suit is hit under Section 14 of the Government Savings Bank Act, 1873. The suit is not maintainable,

since notice under Section 80 C.P.C. had not been served.

On the inter se pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck five issues. Parties led evidence, oral and documentary, to substantiate their

case. Learned trial court came to hold that it was the duty of the depositor to enquire into the terms and conditions before the deposit was made in

a particular Post Office. The authority of Telenga Bazar Post Office or Chandni Chowk Post Office had not acted in contravention of the rules

framed by the Government of India. They discharged their duties as per the rules framed by the Government of India. As per the rule of deposit,

the depositor was entitled to interest at the rate of 3%. Merely because interest had been paid at the rate of 10%, the plaintiffs could not claim the

higher rate. The Court cannot direct the defendants to pay interest at the rate of 10%. The plaintiffs are not entitled to anymore interest. Held so, it

dismissed the suit. The unsuccessful plaintiffs filed M.A.No.14 of 1986 before the learned District Judge, Cuttack. The learned appellate court

allowed the appeal in part holding, inter alia, that the plaintiffs are entitled to a sum of Rs.495.83 paisa i.e., interest at the rate of 31/2% per annum.

It is apt to state here that during pendency of this appeal, all the plaintiffs died, whereafter Tapanesh Ray has been substituted in their place.

The appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law : ""Whether the plea of respondent no.1 is hit by the principle of estoppel ?

Heard Miss.Soumya Priyadarshini, learned Advocate on behalf of Mr.Gautam Mukherjee, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr.Anup

Kumar Bose, learned A.S.G. for respondent no.1.

Mrs.Priyadarshini, learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that in terms of the time deposit scheme floated by the postal authorities,

deposit was made by the plaintiffs on 18.2.1976. Acceptance of the amount by the postal authorities is sufficient to hold that there existed a

binding contract between the parties to permit interest @ 10%. Ext.4, pass book, reflects that on 19.4.1977, 1.3.1978, 6.8.1979 and 30.7.1980,

interest was deposited @ 10% per annum. The purpose of depositing the amount on such scheme was to fetch more interest. The deposit was

made and accepted by the postal authorities. The conduct of the postal authorities by depositing interest @10% per annum for four years

persuaded the plaintiffs to keep the amount in deposit. Had the postal authorities intimated the plaintiffs in time about the rate of interest to be 3%

per annum, the plaintiffs could have withdrawn the money and deposited the amount in any other post office or nationalized bank to fetch higher

interest. The plaintiffs cannot be made to suffer for the mistake of Post Office. The defendant is liable to refund a sum of Rs.12,250.00, which has

been illegally withheld. The appellate court erroneously came to the conclusion that both parties accepted the term of the contract. The plea of

postal authorities is hit by the principle of estoppel.

Per contra, Mr.Anup Kumar Bose, learned A.S.G. for respondent no.1 submitted that as per the rules, the plaintiffs were entitled to interest at

the rate of 3% per annum. The interest has been wrongly calculated at the rate of 10% per annum. The same does not preclude the postal

authorities to calculate interest at the rate prescribed by the Government of India. When it was noticed, the excess amount had been adjusted and

the rest amount had been paid.

In the last part of the passbook, Ext.4 the provisions of Post Office Savings Bank Rules (''Rules'') for the guidance of depositors has been

indicated. Rule 5 provides the percentage of interest to various deposits. The same is quoted hereunder:-

(a) 4 percent, pr annum

(i) For single account on balance at credit exceeding Rs.25,000/-

(ii) For joint account on balance at credit not exceeding Rs.50,000/-

(iii) For Provident Fund Accounts. without limit.

(b) 3 1/2 % in all other accounts.

xx xx xx

xx xx xx

(e) Interest is added once a year after 31st of March.

The submission of the learned Advocate for the appellant that the plaintiffs were not aware of the rate of interest is difficult to fathom. Plaintiff

nos.2, 4 & 5, trustees, were the Advocates. The Rules have been indicated in the pass book, Ext.4. Ext.4 was in their possession. They withdrew

interest for four years. Thus, they were aware of the Rules. When the Rule clearly provides interest at the rate of 31/2%, defendant no.1 was

justified in adjusting the excess amount paid. Merely because the Superintendent of Post Office wrongly calculated the interest and paid the excess

amount, the same is not per se a ground to direct defendant no.1 to pay @10% interest per annum. The same tantamounts to direct perpetuate

illegality. There is no estoppel against the statue. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly.

In the wake of aforesaid, the appeal, sans merit, deserves dismissal. Accordingly the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.