Back
2010(1) CPR 44 (NC)
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
NEW DELHI
Ashok Bhan, President and B.K. Taimni, Member
Prabhaben Sharma —Petitioner
versus
The Sub-Post Master and Ors. —Respondents
Revision No. 757 of 2006 with Revision No. 1280 of 2006, No. 1281 of 2006 and 1603 of 20006
Decided on 4.11.2009
RP No. 757/2006
For the Petitioner: Mr. H.A. Raichura and
Ms. S.H. Raichura, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. R.N. Singh and A.S. Singh, Advocates.
RP No. 1280 and 1281/2006
For the Petitioner:Mr. R.N. Singh, A.S. Singh, Mr. H.A. Raichura and Ms. S.H. Raichura, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. S.Y. Chitale, Mr. Vipin and Mr. K.P. Toms, Advocates.
RP. No. 1603/2006:
For the Petitioner:Mr. K.P. Toms and Mr. Vipin Nair, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. R.N. Singh and Mr. A.S. Singh, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
Pre-mature withdrawal of money in Monthly Income Plan Scheme by Post Office Authorities in violation of Rules and Instruction would be deficiency in service.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 12 and 17—Deficiency in service—An authorized pre-mature withdrawal of money in Monthly Income Scheme Account of complainants—Accounts were being operated through authorized agent—District Forum allowed complaint directing all OP to pay the amount with interest at 10% p.a. —State Commission upheld order on appeal—Revisions—Contention that payment was made on withdrawal form duly signed by agent and complainant—As per Rule 10 of Monthly Income Account, Rules a separate application was required for pre-mature closure of account—Withdrawal form could not be treated valid for pre-mature closure—Money was given not to the agent but husband of the agent who was not the authorized agent—Payment though more than Rs. 20,000 was made in cash which was in violation of instructions issued by Government of India—Agent however could not be held liable who had neither signed withdrawal form nor had received the money—No reason to interfere with rest of the order. (Paras 5, 6, 8 and14)
Result: Revision dismissed except revision by Agent allowed.
B.K. Taimni, Member—These four revision petitions arise from a common order passed by the State Commission on appeals filed by all the parties before them.
2. Briefly stated the facts germane to appreciate the case are that the two complainants, namely, Manharlal Mohanlal Mehta and Maganla Ratanlal Makodiya had deposited certain amounts under Monthly Income Scheme with the Sub-Post Master Dahod District Panchmahal. While Shri Manharlal Mohanlal Mehta, (complainant in complaint No. 38 of 2004) had deposited Rs. 96,000 on 10.1.2003, the other complainant, namely, Shri Maganla Ratanlal Makodiya (complainant in complaint No. 56 of 2004) had deposited Rs. 60,000 and Rs. 82,000 separately under the said scheme. It was the case of the complainants before the District Forum that the agent appointed by the Government, namely, Prabhaben Sharma, through whom they used to obtain the interest but them came to know that in May, 2003, the amounts have been withdrawn prematurely. It was the case of the complainants that they had never this amount prematurely, hence, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the postal authorities, the complaints were filed before the District Forum, wherein the agent Prabhaben Sharma (petitioner in RP 757 of 2006) was made OP No. 4. The District Forum after hearing the parties and perusal of material on record directed all the opposite parties to pay the deposited amount along with interest @ 10% within a month from the order and if this is not complied with then opposite parties will have to pay the penal interest @15% p.a. Aggrieved by this order, 5 separate appeals were filed before the State Commission. The State Commission after hearing the parties dismissed all the appeals except that the appeal filed by OP No.2 before the District Forum, namely, A.A. Malek, was allowed and he was exonerated from any personal liability to pay the amount directed by the District Forum. Aggrieved by the impugned common order these four revision petitions have been filed before us.
Revision Petition No. 1280 and 1281 of 2006
3. These revision petitions have been filled by the postal authorities. Their contention is that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the petitioners as the payment made to the complainants as per Post Office (Monthly Income Account) Rules 1987. Counsel for the petitioner emphatically stated that the withdrawal form was duly signed by the agent and the complainant and, Form SB-7, through which the withdrawal has been made are also used for premature withdrawal. He also emphasized that as per rules, they were permitted to pay the amount in cash, which was paid to the ‘agent’ of the complainant, and hence, no deficiency can be fastened on them. It was also their case that the agent is not the agent of the Post Office as he is not appointed by them. These agents are appointed by the State Government /Collectors for which they have got no rule. Hence, both the lower Fora erred in fastening liability on them.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the material on record, we have carefully gone through the Monthly Income Account, Rules 1987. Rule 9 & 10 read as under:
“9. Closure of Account:
(1) The deposit made at the time of opening of account shall be paid by the post office at which the account stands to depositor on or after expiry of six years from the date of the opening the account along with bonus equal to 10 per cent of the amount deposited, on production of the pass book accompanied by a written application (withdrawal form).
(2) In case of death of a depositor before maturity, account may be closed and deposit refunded along with interest upto the month preceding the month in which refund is made.
10. Premature closure of account—Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (2) of Rule 5, on an application made by the depositor in this regard, he may be permitted to withdraw the deposit and close the account any time after expiry of a perio
