The need for both parties to discharge their respective obligations and the application of equitable justice in balancing the rights and responsibilities of the parties involved.

ORDER

R.P. Dholakia, President - The present respondents had filed a complaint against the present appellants before Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bharuch being Complaint No. 198 of 2009 and same has been finally disposed of by the District Forum on 17.8.2010 wherein directions were given to the appellants herein to pay the deposit amount along with interest @ 9% p.a. and Rs. 2,000 towards cost of the complaint and Rs. 5,000 towards compensation for mental agony.

2. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, this appeal has been filed by the original opponents. The parties to this appeal will be referred to by their original nomenclature.

3. Short facts of the case are that the complainants mother and son respectively opened an account with Bharuch Post Office under the Senior Citizens' Savings Scheme wherein she has deposited the pension benefit amount. On 11.6.2009, the opponents wrote letter to the complainants informing them that as per Rules of Senior Citizens' Saving Scheme Rules, 2004 a joint account could be opened in the name of husband and wife and vice versa and in the present case as the joint holder is son, the Audit Office, Ahmedabad had taken objection and asked to recover the interest amount paid to the complainant with penal interest @ 2%, Thereafter, correspondence ensued between the parties and ultimately, the opponents stopped operation of the account. Aggrieved by the said act of the opponents, complaint came to be filed As stated above, the complaint was partly allowed which gave rise to filing of the present appeal.

4. It is not in dispute that complainant No. 1 on her retirement wanted to open a retirement benefit account known as SCSS Account. It is also not in dispute that the said account could be opened by husband and wife and vice mversa. In the present case, admittedly, the account has been opened in the joint names of mother and son and therefore it has become an irregular account. Opening of the account, deposit of the amount and rate of interest are not in dispute but the only dispute is with regard to irregularity in opening of the account. It is required to be noted that the appeal has been filed by the original opponent. After passing of the order by the District Forum, on 20.9.2010 Government of India, Ministry of Communications and IT, Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan. Sansad Marg, New Delhi has issued a circular clarifying the opening of Jt. Sr. Citizen Savings Scheme Account with spouse. The Circular has been addressed to All Head of Circles/Regions, Addl. Director General, APS, New Delhi. Paras 2 and 3 thereof read as under:

"2. This is being brought to your kind notice that in SCSS 2004 Rules, definition of Spouse has not been given. The concept of Joint Account with spouse was informed by Min. of Finance (DEA) through the clarifications issued by MOF (DEA) vide O.M. No. P 2-8/2004-NS 12 dated 13.10.2004 which was further circulated vide DG Posts letter No. 79-8/20040FS (Vol. III)(Pt.) dated 19.10.2004 (SB Order No. 18/2004). The exact definition of spouse is either husband or wife .

3. This office has received a few such cases for converting into single account which when referred, have been approved by the MOF (DEA). It is requested that if any such case in any post office is noticed, that may be sent to this office in the prescribed format of regularisation immediately."

5. As per the above circular, the authority had decided to regularise such accounts meaning thereby it can be run in a single name. At the time of arguments, in view of the developments that took place during the pendency of the Appeal, the learned Counsel for the appellant had made a reference to the judgment delivered by the Honourable National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Sr. Suptd. of Post Office, Amritsar and Another v. Ashok Kumar, HUF, reported in 2011 (1) CPR 112 (NC), and restricted his arguments on the point of cost of complaint and amount of compensation for mental agony award