The appellate court ruled that excess deposits in Public Provident Fund accounts, beyond statutory limits, do not earn interest; such irregular amounts must be refunded without interest.

1. This Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioners / Opposite Parties against the Respondents / Complainants challenging the impugned Order dated 17.10.2019 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka, Bangalore, in Appeal No. 554 of 2014. vide such Order, the State Commission had allowed the Appeal filed by the Complainants and consequently, the Consumer Complaint No. 2321 of 2013 which was filed by the Complainants before the District Forum, Seshadripuram, Bangalore, was allowed directing and holding the Opposite Parties jointly and severally liable to pay the maturity amount with accrued interest thereon with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of maturity till realisation. The Opposite Parties were also directed to pay Rs.5,000 towards compensation and Rs.5,000 towards cost of the proceedings.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant No. 1 had opted to invest in the office of Opposite Party No. 1 and had consequently, opened an account under the Public Provident Fund Scheme in 1992 for a period of 15 years. Subsequently, the Complainant No. 1 was allotted Account No. 662 and the passbook was issued. It was averred that after completion of the said statutory period, the Complainant No. 1 extended the period for another period of 5 years from 8.11.2008. The Complainant No. 1 had also opened Accounts bearing Nos. 1943 and 1852 in the names of Complainant Nos. 2 and 3 respectively in the year 1999 (1999, being the year in which the investments began) for a period of 15 years on their behalf for them being minors at that time. Accordingly, the Opposite Party had also issued passbooks.

3. It was the case of the Complainants that the amounts of deposits were being collected by the government authorized agent alongwith passbook from the Complainants since the date of issuance of the passbook and the Complainants are entitled to receive the deposit made and interest earned as mentioned in the passbook. However, when the Opposite Party No. 1 was being intimated to enter the name of Complainant No. 2 as a major person in all the postal records as well as pass book, the Opposite Party No. 1 orally raised an issue that some amounts of deposits of the Complainant No. 2 were irregular and no interest would be paid to him. It was further averred that the Complainant vide letter dated 20.4.2013 to the Opposite Party No. 4 and copy to the other Opposite Parties placed reliance on the Page 27 of the book written by Mr. Dureja (Retd. Asst. Post Master General) to support his averments. Subsequently, the Opposite Party No. 1 sent the details to the Opposite Party No. 2 stating that the investment has to be made upto Rs.70,000 in a year and the above three accounts had to collectively grant interest towards deposits only to the extent of Rs.70,000 in a year. Any excess of Rs.70,000 had to be treated as irregular subscription and would not carry interest, and the excess amount would be refunded without any interest. Consequently, the Opposite Party Nos. 2 sent a letter to the Complainant No. 1 informing that the investments made in respect of Complainant No. 2 and 3 are not eligible for any interest and the deposits made by them are to be refunded without interest, and that the action taken by the Opposite Party No. 1 is in order.

4. It was contended by the Complainants that the deposits were made right from the beginning through the authorized agents and they ought to have informed that there was any limit in deposit and instead of accepting the deposit, they ought to have refused at the beginning itself while opening the accounts. Even assuming that a