AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Deepa Sharma, Presiding Member
The present Revision Petition has been filed against the Order dated 07.06.2022 of the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Lucknow (for short the State Commission) in Appeal No. 1603 of 2008, whereby the Appeal was dismissed and the Order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Azamgarh (for short the District Forum) dated 18.07.2008 in Consumer Complaint No. 144 of 2006 was confirmed.
The brief admitted facts of the Case are that the Respondent, who is the Complainant, had opened a PPF Account with the Petitioners for a period of 15 years. He had been regularly making the deposits and after 15 years also he continued to make the payment in the PPF Account. It has also come on record that the Petitioners had credited interest as applicable to PPF Account on deposits. When the Respondent demanded the amount after maturity, an amount of Rs.1,10,350.70 was deducted from his account on the ground that the interest has been wrongly added in his account and that he was not entitled for the rate of interest which the PPF attracts on the ground that he had not submitted Form-H within limitation.
It is argued by learned Counsel for the Petitioners that according to Rule 9(3A) and (5) of PPF Scheme, 1968, Form-H was required to be furnished within one year from the date of maturity of the Account for further extension of PPF after 15 years and only then the depositor was entitled for the interest as applicable to PPF Account.
The District Forum has dealt with this contention and has held as under:
“As is evident from the statements of the parties and it is also accepted that Public Provident Fund No. 9 was transferred from Haldwani to District Faizabad on dated 13.2.80 from the complainant to Haldwani and new account number was established by changing the account number to 10000011 in Faizabad Post Office and Due to the transfer of the complainant from district Faizabad to district Azamgarh, this account was again transferred to district Azamgarh, where its number new number 501 was established. It is also accepted in this case that the interest of Rs.1,10,395.70 deposited in the account from 1996 to 2003 was deducted by Senior Superintendent of Post Office Faizabad, before the transfer of this account to District Ajamgarh, because the complainant had not submitted the duly filled in Form H within one year of maturity of the account, and the rule is that if the account holder wants to continue the account even after the maturity period, then it is mandatory to fill and submit the form H and if the account holder does not fill the form and submit the same and continues depositing money even after the maturity period in the account, then the amount deposited after the maturity period of the account will be treated as irregular and the account holder will not be entitled to get any interest on this irregular deposit nor will he be entitled to any interest under section 88 of the Income Tax Act.
It is pertinent to mention again in this context that the complainant had opened Public Provident Fund No. 9 on 13.2.1980 at Haldwani and its maturity period was 15 years i.e. this account attained maturity on 13.2.1995. It is also allowed in this case that the complainant continued to make deposits after the maturity of the account, but he did not submit the duly filled form H within one year of the maturity of the account, but submitted it on 31.08.04.
For the sake of clarity, it is necessary to quote the concerned departmental rules in this context which are as follows. (3A) Continuation of account with deposit of on maturity:
Subject to the provisions of sub paragraph (3) a subscription may, on the expiry of 15 years from the end of the year in which the initial subscription was made but before the expiry of one year thereafter, may exercise an option with the Accounts Office in Form H, or as near thereto as possible, that he would continue to subscribe for a further block period of 5 years according to the limits of subscription specified in paragraph 3.
In this context, another rule of this department which is related to this matter and which the opposite parties have mentioned in their defense and written arguments, also want to be cited which is as follows:
(5) According to Rule 9 (3A) and (3B) the subscriber can continue to make deposits after the maturity of an account for one or more further blocks of 5 years without any loss of benefit. For this purpose he will give his option in writing to the Accounts Office in Form H. within one year from the date of maturity of the account. If the subscriber fails to give his option to continue the account within one year but continues to make deposits in the account, these deposits will be treated as irregular deposits and will not carry interest. Further these deposits will not earn rebate under Section 88 of Income Tax Act unless the account is regularized by the Ministry of Finance (DEA). For this purpose the subscriber will have to write to the Ministry of Finance, (DEA) NS Branch through the Accounts Officer for regularising the account which was continued by him without giving the option.
In this way, it is clear from Rule 3A and rule 5 of “The Public Provident Fund Act, 1968” and the Public Provident Fund Scheme 1968 made under it, cited above, that the account holder of the Public Provident Fund can make deposits even after the maturity of his account for blocks of 5-5 years, the only condition is that after the maturity of the account, the account holder will have to fill the form H on the prescribed format and submit it to the competent officer of the concerned post office, and if the account holder does not fill in and deposit form H in the concerned post office within the year, then after the maturity period of the account, the amount deposited by the account holder will be considered irregular and the account holder will neither be entitled to get interest on such deposit nor will he be entitled to get any exemption on the amount under section 88 of the Income Tax Act.
A photocopy of the passbook related to the complainant’s account has been filed, from which it is clear that the account holder Dr. J.P. Singh had opened this Public Provident Fund account on 13.2.1980 during his posting in Haldwani district and his account attained maturity after 15 years on 31.2.1995 at the Head Post Office in Faizabad. He continued to make deposits in this account regularly. It would be worth mentioning in this context that the provision for filling in form H as option for the account holder to continue with the account after maturity, was done vide Notification No. F3(8)-P.D./84 Dated 22.7.85, No. F3(6)PD/86 dated 22.3.1986 and No. G.S.R. 1013(E) dated 20.8.86. It will be worth mentioning in this context that even after the maturity date of 13.2.95, the complainant continued to make regular deposits in the account in order to continue the account and the deposits made by the complainant were accepted by the officials of the post office & credited in his account, despite his having not filled form H. It may be mentioned in this context that after the notification of 1986, every account holder cannot be expected to have knowledge of the notification to continue the account after maturity. In my view, it is the obligatory duty of the concerned officers of the opposition post office to inform every such account holder who wishes to continue with his account after maturity, to fill the form H as per the notification, within one year of the maturity of the account.
In this context, we would also like to quote the form of Form H which is as follows:
To,
The Agent/Manager/Post Master,
My Public Provident Fund Acct No …….
has completed 15 years after the initial year of its commencement on ……..
I wish to continue to subscribe to my alive retired account for a further block period of 5 years according to the limits prescribed in paragraph 3 of the Scheme
Date …….
Signature or Thumb
Impression of subscriber/guardian
It is clear from this Form H that it is of formal nature and in its submission, the account holder does not have to go through any complicated procedure. The complainant J.P. Singh himself is a doctor and is a public servant. In my opinion, if the concerned officers of the post office had informed him about the form and filling, he would not have failed to complete this formality. In this context, I want to reiterate again that the post office officials did not inform the complainant about the requirement of filling form H within the stipulated period, which is a sign of serious negligence on the part of the concerned officers of the post office. In this context, I also consider it appropriate to mention that in the post office, mostly illiterate men and women are account holders, who do not even know about the general rules related to the account. If the officials of the bank or Post Office are indifferent/negligent towards their duties, then a time will come when the general public’s trust in the bank or post office will be lost and the framework of these important financial institutions could collapse.
In the present case, it is accepted that the complainant, Dr. J.P. Singh filled Form H on 31.8.2004, and sent to Faizabad Post Office. The Senior Post Master of Faizabad H.P.O., sent a letter to Director Postal Services Lucknow Region, Lucknow that ‘Anti-dated Form H’ has been received from the account holder J.P. Singh and the amount deposited by the account holder is being treated as regular deposit. This letter is as follows:- Department of Posts
From
Sr. Post Master
Faizabad 224001
To
Director Postal Services Lucknow Region O/O the CM.PG.UP Circle Lucknow 226001
No SD/Gont/1.P.Singh 2004-2005 Dt. at Faizabad the 17.3.2005 the name of Dr. J.P. Singh
Subject & Reg regularization of Faizabad H.O. P.P.F. A/c No. 10000011 in Ref.-Co Letter No. SB/SBIC/Faizabad/transfer of Azamgarh Dt. 14.3.2005 and telephone take Dated 10.3.05.
As regards to treat regular deposit after 15 years of account on anti dated ‘Form H’ has been obtained from depositor and the same are treated as regular deposits.
Senior Post Master
Faizabad 224001
In reply to this letter of Senior Post Master
“Chief Post Master General U.P.
A letter dated 4.8.2006 was received from the Office of “Circle Lucknow”. mentions that
The case has been examined at this end, there is no provision of payment of interest in such case. The depositor may therefore be clearly replied that No interest can be paid on deposits made by this after the maturity without giving option to the post office. He may write to the ministry of Finance (DFA) N.S. Branch through the senior superintendent Azamgarh for elating rebate on Income Tax on such deposits. He can also calved Local Income authorities in Azamgarh For chief P.M.G. U.P. Lucknow.
Thus, in the present case, I think even the senior most officers of the Postal Department did not consider it seriously and made a formal order not to pay the interest by taking recourse to the provision of Rule 3A of the Provident Fund Scheme, which is not justified based on the facts of this case and in the specific circumstances of this case. The officers of the Postal Department, in this case, have not considered that the filling of Form H is a mere formality and through this act the account holder requests that he/she wishes to continue his/her account after maturity and this form is to be filled up anytime within one year after the maturity of the account & the account holder can make deposits amount in the account after maturity of the account. It is thus clear that the filling up of the form H, is not a prior condition for continuation of the account after maturity of the account. In the absence of Form H, the amount deposited by the account holder cannot be considered as Irregular deposit in the case where an ante-dated “Form H” has been received from the account holder. Since in the present case the complainant has been depositing making regular deposits, to continue his account, from just after the maturity of his above public provident fund account, therefore the amount deposited by him cannot be called as Irregular deposit and the amount deposited by him after maturity of the account cannot be called as Irregular deposit and complainant is entitled to interest by law on the entire amount deposited in his account after maturity of the account. Similarly, on the basis of the above discussion, we come to the conclusion that the complaint presented by the complainant Dr. J.P. Singh is acceptable against the opposition, Government of India, through Secretary Postal Department, New Delhi and other three others is maintainable.”
This Order when impugned before the State Commission, the State Commission vide the Impugned Order has dismissed the Appeal and has affirmed the Order of the District Forum and has held as under:
“… Appellants have cited the case of Arulmighu Dhandayudhapaniswamy Vs. Director General of Post Offices, Department of Posts & Ors.. From the perusal of the facts of which case, it is known that the account was not operated regularly by the complainant, hence the account was closed. Hence, interest on this amount was not considered payable after closing of the account. This position does not exist in the present case as the account of the complainant was never irregular and the account was never closed, hence the account of the complainant cannot be considered irregular. The arrangement given in this example cannot be taken to be applicable in the present case. The appeal is liable to be dismissed accordingly.
I have heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners. From the perusal of the record, it is apparent that the Complainant/Respondent never faulted in the deposit of money in his PPF Account and it is also clear that in his Account the interest rate to which he was entitled under the PPF had been credited even after expiry of 15 years and, therefore, it is apparent that the Petitioners continued to accept the deposits in the PPF Account of the Complainant/Respondent and continued to credit the rate of interest to which he was entitled under PPF Scheme. It is not in dispute that the PPF Scheme can be extended beyond 15 years. If it was mandatory to fill Form-H, there is nothing on record that Complainant/Respondent was asked to fill that Form-H. It is also clear that the Petitioners continued to accept deposits in PPF Account and also credited the applicable interest. This conduct of the Petitioners shows that they themselves did not find it mandatory to fill Form-H. Otherwise, the Petitioners would have stopped accepting deposits in PPF Account as, according to the Petitioners, Form-H was not filled by the Complainant/Respondent within one year on expiry of 15 years of opening of PPF Account.
The finding of Fora below is based on evidences on record and does not suffer with any illegality or infirmity.
The Petition has no merits and is dismissed.