Order

F.A. No. 709 of 2013 F.A. No. 710 of 2013 Heard learned counsel for both the parties.

2. Since both the appeals arise out of two complaint cases but issues are same and the OPs are same, both the appeals are heard analogously. This common order shall govern the result of both the appeals.

3. These appeals are filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to these appeals shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.

4. The case of the complainant in CC No. 115 of 2011 is that he being a business man has opened a PPF account through postal agent on 31.3.1999 for initial deposit of Rs.2,000/-. It is alleged that the complainant is residing in a HUF and the complainant being the Karta of his own family opened the PPF Account bearing No. 482 and also having separate pan card. It is also alleged by complainant that his two brothers are also residing separately and they being karta of their respective HUF also opened two separate PPF accounts in 1999. It is also revealed that the complainant has deposited money in very year till audit objection received. It is stated that originally he has deposited Rs.2,000/- which was accepted in that year and also in each year till 2006 by Postal Authorities. It is alleged that on 25.7.2006 audit objection was made by the Auditor of Postal Authorities that only one PPF account can be opened on behalf of HUF by a Karta and accordingly Postal Department issued letter to the complainant about audit objection. It is allegedinter alia that one PPF account can be opened by the Karta of the HUF family as individual becausecomplainant is residing in separate mess with his own children, he has no joint mess with his two brothers. Complainant has opened PPF accounton 31.3.1999 and OPs accepted Rs.60,000/- on 31.3.1999 with initial deposit of Rs.2,000/- and the deposits accordingly in all the years till 2006-07 and the total deposit became Rs.5,98,566/- as on 8.9.2006 but the PPF account was not regularized in spite of deposit of said amount. Therefore, he approached the OPs.

Since the OPs did not settle the claim, the complaint was filed.

5. The case of the complainant in CC No. 116 of 2011 is that being a business man he has opened a FD account on 31.3.1999 for initial deposit of Rs.2,000/-. It s alleged that the complainant is residing in a HUF being karta for his family members and as such opened a PPF account bearing No. 482 and he has also separate pan card. It is alleged that his two brothers also residing separately and they being karta of their respective HUF, opened three separate PPF account in 1999. It is also admitted fact that the complainant continued to deposit money till audit objection made in 2006. It is also stated that originally Rs.2,000/- was made as initial deposit which were accompanied with other amount in each year till 2006. Since the complainant not residing in joint family and they are residing in separate mess sing long, for which, they objected but the allegation not properly been addressed by the OPs. Therefore, complaint was filed.

6. OPs filed written version in both the cases by stating that due to auditobjection and the case being filed in 2011 is barred by limitation. Further, they took the plea that three account Nos. 482, 488 and 489 were opened on 31.3.1999 at Chandinichowk Head Post Office in the name of S.J.Doshi, ChandrakantaJ.Doshi and VipinJ.Doshi in the address of ChandrakantJayantilal, Nayasarak, Cutack. It is further alleged that all the accounts are same and all being sons of ChandrakantJayantilal areliving in same address. However, it is admitted that OPs have opened three PPF accounts against respective three brothers separately on 31.3.1999 and accordingly, they were deposited money in different accounts of different amount to their respective accounts in each year till 8.9.2006. But they submitted that at the time of Postal Audit, objections were rai