Back
MAHARASTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
B.B. Vagyani, President, P.N. Kashalkar, Judicial Member and S.P. Lale, Member
ASCHARYA LAL SADANA AND ORS. - Appellants
Versus
SR. SUPDT. OF POST OFFICE NORTH-EAST DIVISION, BHANDUP MUMBAI AND ANR. - Respondents
First Appeal No. 2503 of 2006 and First Appeal No. 67 of 2006
Decided on : 27-08-2007
Postal Department - Consumer Complaint - MIS Scheme - [Indian Post Office Act, 1898, Section 3(1)(a); Indian Post Office Rules, 1933, Rule 3] - The court discussed the provisions of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, Section 3(1)(a) and the Indian Post Office Rules, 1933, Rule 3. The court emphasized the duty of the Postal Department to follow prescribed procedures and issue fresh Passbooks with new account numbers. The court held that the mistake committed by the joint account holders was immediately rectified by the Postal Department itself, and the subsequent stand taken by the Postal Department was contrary to their own act of rectification. The court also directed the Postal Department to pay bonus to the complainants as per the rules of the MIS Scheme of the Postal Department.
Fact of the Case:
The joint account holders invested in the MIS Scheme of the Postal Department, and a mistake in the joint accounts was rectified by the Postal Department. The Postal Department later refused to transfer the joint accounts and raised objections, leading to a consumer complaint.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the mistake in the joint accounts was rectified by the Postal Department itself, and the subsequent stand taken by the Postal Department was contrary to their own act of rectification. The court also directed the Postal Department to pay compensation and bonus to the complainants.
Issues: The issues involved the rectification of the mistake in the joint accounts, the refusal of the Postal Department to transfer the joint accounts, and the entitlement of the complainants to compensation and bonus.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Postal Department had a duty to follow prescribed procedures and issue fresh Passbooks with new account numbers. The court also emphasized that the mistake committed by the joint account holders was immediately rectified by the Postal Department itself.
Final Decision: Appeal No. 67/2007 filed by the Postal Department was dismissed with costs to be paid to the respondents. Appeal No. 2503/2006 was allowed, and the Postal Department was directed to pay the specified amounts to the complainants within 30 days, along with bonus and compensation.
ORDER
B.B. Vagyani, President (Oral)- Appeal No. 67/2007 filed by Senior Superintendent of Post Office and Post Master, Chembur is directed against the order dated 10.10.2006 passed by Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Forum in consumer complaint No. 376/2003 and Appeal No. 2503/2006 filed by org. complainants is directed against the same order for reliefs not granted by the Forum below.
2. We heard Mr. A.V. Patwardhan, Advocate for org. complainants and Mr. C.N. Mani, Advocate for the Postal Department.
3. Mr. Ascharya Lal Sadana and Mrs. Lajwanti Sadana invested Rs. 4,08,000 in MIS Scheme of Postal Department on 15.4.1998 (Account No. 13337). Mr. Anshul Sadana and Mr. Ascharya Lal Sadana invested Rs. 4,08,000 in MIS Scheme of Postal Department on 17.4.1998 (Account No. 13347). Mr. Aseem Sadana and Mrs. Lajwanti Sadana invested Rs. 4,08,000 in MIS Scheme of Postal Department on 15.4.1998 (Account No. 13336). The agreed rate of interest was 13% p.a.
4. As per rules, Mr. Ascharya Lal Sadana and Mrs. Lajwanti Sadana cannot invest amount jointly more than Rs. 4,08,000. After realizing the mistake in the month of May 1998, the Postal Department without using fresh stationery rectified the mistake in the old Passbooks. As per rectification, Mr. Ascharya Lal Sadana and Mr. Nand Lal Sadana are shown as joint account holders of Account No. 13337. Mr Anshul Sadana and Mr. Lajwanti Sadana are shown as joint account holders of Account No. 13347. Mr. Aseem Sadana and Mrs. Sejal Sadana are shown as joint account holders of Account No. 13336. Each account was within the prescribed limit meant for the joint account holders under the MIS Scheme. This rectification/regularization was made by the Postal Department. The Postal Department paid interest @ 13% p.a. to the joint account holders for period of four years without any objection. We are told that Account No. 13336 is settled by the Postal Department.
5. Joint account holders shifted from Chembur to Andheri. Therefore, they applied for transfer of joint accounts to Andheri. The Postal Department did not transfer the joint accounts and raise objection to the effect that the accounts should have been closed as per Rules in the month of May 1998 when the mistake was noticed. The Postal Department locked all the joint accounts and asked the joint account holders to refund interest amount of Rs. 1,03,870. According to the Postal Department, joint account holders are not entitled to get interest to the tune of Rs. 1,03,870. Therefore, the joint account holders filed consumer complaint in the Forum below. The said complaint was resisted by the Postal Department mainly on the ground that the complainants/joint account holders opened the joint accounts contrary to the Rules and Regulations. The correct procedure for rectification of mistake was to close the accounts and to refund the principal amount deducting the interest, if paid. It is specifically mentioned in the written statment, particularly in Para Nos. 4 and 7 that there is no provision for regularization or substitution of the names. It is also stated in the written statement that the investigation was started to find out mistake committed by unknown person. The Forum below allowed the complaint and directed the Postal Department to transfer all the three joint accounts to Andheri within period of one month. The Forum below however did not grant any relief in respect of interest, refund of principal amount and compensation for deficiency. Therefore, org. complainants have filed Appeal No. 2503/2006. The Postal Department has filed Appeal No. 67/2007.
6. The stand taken by the Postal Department does not appeal to the reasons. Such type of mistake cannot be rectified as a strange proposition. Every mistake has a remedy. The mistake committed by the joint account holders when brought to the notice of the Postal Department was immediately rectified by using old Passbooks. The mistake was regularized by Postal Department itself. The names of Mr. As
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
