IMPORTANT POINT
People should not be taken by surprise.

J.M. Malik, Presiding Member—This order shall decide the two revision petitions detailed above, which pertain to the same impugned order of the State Commission, dated 27.02.2015. The two revision petitions have been filed separately by both the parties.

2. The only question which swirls around the present controversy is, whether, the consumers under the “HUF- PPF Scheme” are entitled to receive interest after the Notification/Resolution of the Finance Department dated 13.05.2005.

3. The facts germane to these cases are as follows. Dr. Navnit N. Desai, the complainant, is the Administrator of ‘HUF’. He opened an account with the Post Office, Amareli, in the year 1986. It was to come to an end in the year 2002. He moved an application for extension of time for the year 2007-2008. The complainant went on depositing the amount in the said account, till the year 2009. All the amounts were received by the employees of the Postal Department.

4. However, in the year 2010, when the applicant tried to deposit the amount in his PPF account, the Post Master, OP3, refused to accept the same. The complainant was not aware of the same. However, on 23.04.2010, the OP3 sent a letter for getting the verification of the Pass Book. OP3 contended that the said account was not extended after 12.05.2005, even though the complainant was paid interest up to the said amount after the period of 13.05.2005. On 11.01.2011, the amount of Rs.24,98,026/- was paid to the complainant and the amount of Rs.6,21,636/- was deducted from the said principal amount, illegally. The complainant has served notice and ultimately filed the complaint with the District Forum.

5. The case of the OPs is that during the audit inspection dated 13.04.2010, it was found that during the verification of the PPF account, the account of the complainant continued till 31.03.2007, illegally and irregularly. They admitted that the amount was received and the interest was credited in favour of the complainant. However, the account was closed and the interest was recovered for the period from 2007 to 2009 to 2009-10. It was also explained that the account was opened for five years after the year of 2002 and the same was closed on 31.03.2007. As per Notification of the Finance Department, vide No. F.2/8/2005-NS-II, dated 13.05.2005, the HUF’s PPF Account was opened prior to amendment dated 13.05.2005 and if such an account was not closed, the same will have to be continued till 31.03.2011. However, no interest amount could be paid even though the complainant continued the account illegally and irregularly for the period of five years from 31.03.2007. Consequently, the above said amount was recovered.

6. The District Forum allowed the complaint and ordered the OP to pay to the complainant, a sum of Rs.6,21,636/- with interest @ 6% p.a., from 11.01.2011, till its realisation. It also awarded a sum of Rs.500/- as costs of the case.

7. The State Commission passed the following order :-

“[1] The present appeal of the appellants –original opponents is hereby dismissed with costs.

[2] The order passed by the learned Consumer Forum in Complaint No. 23/12, dated 04-10-12 is hereby set aside and pass the order that the original opponents shall jointly and severally pay the interest at the rate of 6% p.a., on the amount deposited for the period from 01-04-07 to 31-03-10 to the applicant within three months from the date of this order and also the original opponents shall pay Rs.2000/- towards mental agony and harassment and costs of Rs.500/- to the applicant.

[3] In the present appeal, if any amount deposited by the opponent before the Commission then in that case calculating the mesne interest thereon and same will be paid by account payee cheque to the original applicant on due verification and it is hereby ordered that same cheque be handed over to the L.A. for the applicant”.

8. We have heard the counsel for the petitioner. He has cited an authority reported in Arulmighu Dhandayudhapaniswamy Th