Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Mr. Prem Narain, Presiding Member
SADHNA CHATURVEDI - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Revision Petition No. 3173 of 2015 against Order dated 5.8.2015 in First Appeal No. 2345 of 2008 of Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Decided on : 05-07-2017
Mr. V.K. Sharma, Advocate, for the Petitioner; Mr. Anil Panwar, Advocate, for the Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the complainant's claim for the 10% bonus under the Monthly Income Savings Scheme was not valid due to the scheme's amendment and the complainant's awareness of this amendment when depositing the cheques.
Headnote:
Cheques - Monthly Income Savings Scheme - NIL - The court discussed the provisions of the Monthly Income Savings Scheme and the withdrawal of the 10% bonus with effect from 13.2.2006. The court highlighted that the complainant's claim for the 10% bonus was not valid as the scheme had been amended, and the complainant was aware of this amendment when depositing the cheques.
Fact of the Case:
The complainants deposited four cheques for opening a Monthly Income Savings Scheme account, which were lost in transit. They deposited fresh cheques, but the scheme's 10% bonus had been withdrawn by the time the account was opened. The District Forum ordered the opposite party to pay Rs. 60,000 to the complainants, but the State Commission allowed the appeal and set aside the order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant's claim for the 10% bonus was not valid as the scheme had been amended, and the complainant was aware of this amendment when depositing the cheques. The court dismissed the revision petition, stating that there was no illegality, material irregularity, or jurisdictional error in the State Commission's order.
Issues: The issues revolved around the complainant's entitlement to the 10% bonus under the Monthly Income Savings Scheme, the timing of the scheme's amendment, and the responsibility of the opposite party for the loss of the original cheques.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the fact that the complainant was aware of the amendment to the scheme when depositing the fresh cheques, and therefore, the claim for the 10% bonus was not valid. The court also emphasized the government's power to amend saving schemes and the lack of challenge to this power in the complaint.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the State Commission's order and finding no grounds for interference.
ORDER
Prem Narain, Presiding Member. - This revision petition has been filed by petitioners Smt. Sadhna Chaturvedi & Anr., against the order dated 5.8.2015 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, (in short 'the State Commission') passed in Appeal No. 2345 of 2008.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners/complaints, Smt. Sadhana Chaturvedi and another opened one Joint Account under Monthly Income Savings Scheme on 30.1.2006 at Sub Post Office, Arya Samaj Road, Mathura and deposited 4 cheques of Dena Bank, Mathura bearing Nos. 1311178, 1311179,1311180 and 1464011 for Rs. 1,50,000 each totalling to Rs. 6 lacs. The complainants were not issued Pass Book of the same in time and, therefore, a complaint was made in this regard to the higher authorities. Consequently, the Postal Authorities informed them on 28.2.2006 that the aforesaid four cheques of Rs. 1.50 lacs each were lost in transit. Therefore, the complainants again deposited 4 cheques bearing Nos. 7464016 to 7464019 on 1.3.2006 and the same were credited in the account concerned on 3.3.2006. In the meantime, there was a change in the policy and the grant of 10% Bonus, payable under the Monthly Income Scheme was withdrawn with effect from 13.2.2006. Accordingly, the complainants were denied of the benefits of Bonus. Aggrieved by this deficiency in service, complaint case No. 220 of 2006 was filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mathura, (in short 'the District Forum') for redressal of their grievances.
3. The complaint was resisted by the opposite party. The District Forum, after considering the submission of both the parties allowed the complaint as under on 4.11.2008:
"It is hereby ordered to pay the amount of Rs. 60,000 (Rupees sixty thousand only) to the appellants by the opposite party. The payment should be made within three months of decision. In case the payment is not made within three months, the opposite party would liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum on this amount till the date of realization. The opposite would also pay Rs. 2,000 as cost of litigation."
4. Aggrieved with the order of the District Forum, the opposite party preferred an appeal before the State Commission, which was allowed vide its order dated 5.8.2015.
5. Hence the revision petition.
6. Heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that the complainant deposited four cheques of Rs. 1,50,000 each on 30.1.2006 with the Post Office for opening Monthly Income Scheme (MIS) account. The complainant did not receive any information and the post office/opposite party informed on 28.2.2006 that the cheques were lost in transit and the complainant may deposit fresh cheques to open the MIS account. Accordingly, the complainant deposited fresh cheques of the same amount on 1.3.2006, which were encashed on 3.3.2006 and MIS account was opened on 3.3.2006 itself. In the meantime, the Government of India had withdrawn the benefit of 10% bonus from the MIS Scheme with effect from 13.2.2006. Thus, the complainant was prevented from getting 10% bonus as the MIS account started only from 3.3.2006. As the complainant had deposited the cheques in January itself, in the normal course, MIS account could have been opened before 13.2.2006 and complainant would have got benefit of 10% bonus under the Scheme. Thus, the complainant suffered a loss of Rs. 60,000 and that is why complaint was filed. The District Forum had allowed the complaint, whereas, the State Commission allowed the appeal filed by the opposite party and has set aside the order of the District Forum. The learned Counsel argued that this loss has occurred to the complainant due to deficiency of the opposite party that the original cheques submitted in the month of January, were lost and MIS account could not be opened by 13.2.2016. The State Commission has set aside the order of the District Forum on the ground that when th
