BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI Present Hon'ble Thiru Justice M. THANIKACHALAM PRESIDENT Tmt. Vasugi Ramanan, M.A.,B.L., MEMBER I Thiru S. Sambandam, B.Sc., MEMBER II F.A.NO.373/2007 (Against order in C.C.NO.17/2006 on the file of the DCDRF, Dindigul) DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF AUGUST 2010 The Sub-Post Master Palayam Post Office Palayam, Vedasandar Taluk Dindigul District 624 620 Appellant / Opposite party Vs. 1.
M.S. 722 K.Anaipatti Milk Producer
Cooperative Society
through its secretary
K. Anaipatti Post, Vedasandar Taluk
Dindigul District
2. M.S. 722 K.Anaipatti Milk Producer
Cooperative Society
through its secretary
K. Anaipatti Post, Vedasandar Taluk
Dindigul District Respondents
/ Complainants
The Respondents as complainants
filed a complaint before the District Forum against the Appellant / opposite
party praying for the direction to the opposite parties to refund the matured
value of 3 bonds with interest and to pay Rs.35000/- as compensation. The
District Forum partly allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this
appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.13.11.2006
in O.P.No.17/2006.
This appeal
coming before us for hearing finally on 16.8.2010. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsels on
either side, this commission made the following order:
Counsel
for the Appellant/ Opposite party: M/s. P.
Natarajan, Advocate
Counsel
for the Respondents/ Complainants: Mr.S. Kalimuthu, Advocate
M. THANIKACHALAM J,
PRESIDENT
1. The opposite parties are the appellants.
2. The complainants/ respondents 1 and 2,
had purchased three Kissan Vikas Patra
(KVP), for a total sum of Rs.25000/-, from the opposite party post office. When the complainant made requisition, after
the maturity period of 5 years over, they were informed, that the amount will
be paid without interest, since the certificates were issued, in the name of
the society, against the rules. Despite request, till date the amount has not
been refunded, and the failure to refund the matured value of the bonds, tantamount
to deficiency in service. The opposite
parties cannot take advantage of their fault, denying interest. The refusal to pay the deposit amount,
alongwith interest should be construed as deficiency of service. Hence the
complainant is entitled to, not only for the recovery of Rs.50000/- with
interest thereon, but also for a sum of Rs.35000/- as compensation for mental
agony.
3. The opposite party, accepting the
purchase of Kissan Vikas Patras (KVP), would contend, that the investments by
the complainants, in the KVPs were irregular, against the order of the
Government of India, that when the opposite parties have implemented rules
framed by Government of India, thereby denying interest, cannot be construed as
deficiency in service, and that though the complainant has been requested to
encash the amount without interest, they failed to do so, which cannot be
termed as deficiency, as per the dictum of the Supreme Court, thereby praying
for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. The District Forum, despite objections
raised by the opposite party, ruled that the complainants, are entitled to
interest @6% p.a., from the date of respective purchases of KVPs, placing
reliance upon certain decisions, thereby directing the opposite party to pay a
sum of Rs.50000/- with interest, alongwith cost, denying other reliefs, as per
order d.13.11.2006, which is under challenge.
5. Heard the learned counsel for appellant,
as well as the respondent, perused the written submissions, lower court records
and also the order passed by the District Forum.
6. It was urged on behalf of the appellant,
that as per the rules framed for KVPs, which came into effect from 1.4.95, this
kind of security could be acquired only by
(i)
An adult for himself or on
behalf of a minor or to a minor
(ii)
a trust
whereas, the
society had purchased three KVPs in this case, which is against the rules, and
therefore as such they are not entitled to claim interest, since their
possession of KVPs were irregular, which was not properly considered by the
District Forum, which was opposed.
7. Admittedly, as seen from Ex.A1 series,
the complainant society had acquired three KVPs, for a total paid value of
Rs.25000/-, having the maturity value of Rs.50000/-, as per the dates mentioned
therein. After the maturity period, when
the complainants had approached the opposite party, they refused to pay
interest, conceding to give only the principal, which was not acceptable to the
complainants, resulting this complaint, as if the opposite party had committed
deficiency.
8. The jurisdiction of the consumer forum
will come into operation, if there was a case of deficiency in service, either
in terms of the law, or in terms of the contract, as held by the Apex court in Post Master, Dargamitta H.P.O., Nellore Vs.
Raja Prameelamma, reported in (MS)
(1998) 9 SCC 706. On the other hand,
if the staff of the opposite party had inadvertently sold Kissan Vikas Patra to
the complainant, and the complainant without knowing the position, whether they
could aquire this kind of KVPs, had acquired, then the non-payment of interest,
as per the rules, cannot be termed as deficiency in service. In this context, we have to see, the position
of the complainant, and who are all entitled to hold KVPs, as per rules.
9. Admittedly, the complainant is a cooperative
society, not a trust, or an adult. As
per KVP rules 1988, as amended in the year 1995, which came into effect from 1st
April 1995, this kind of certificate can be issued only to a adult for himself
or on behalf of a minor or to a minor trust.
The complainant is not coming within the above definition of a
holder. The certificates were purchased
in 1998, i.e., after amendment. Thus it
is seen, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for opposite party, that
the complainant was not a valid holder of KVPs.
Thus, a further submission was made, that the complainants are not
entitled to the interest, even from the date of purchase of the Kisan Vikas
Patras, and if at all they are entitled to only the amount actually paid, viz. Rs.25000/-. Though the arguments appears to be
reasonable, on the face value, based upon the above amendments, considering
other rules, as well as the decision rendered by the National Commission, we
are of the view that the complainant may be given interest, for the amount invested,
though not as agreed under the KVPs, but a reasonable interest @6% p.a., from
the date of deposit, and we record our reasons hereunder, irrespective of the
fact, whether there was deficiency or not, instead of driving the parties for
another litigation..
10. The learned counsel for appellant, in order
to negative the claim of interest, invited our attention to the decision
rendered by the State Commission of Gujarat, at Ahmedabad, in Special Civil
Application No.2877/2003, dt.14.7.2004, wherein, rules relating to KVPs were
considered by the learned judge, who came to the conclusion, that the purchaser
of the KVP is not entitled to claim interest.
We have gone through the judgement, very carefully, and given our
anxious thought also. But, considering
Rule 13, we are of the view, that a simple interest can be allowed, though
authorization is required, from the Central Government. Rule 13, Proviso provided that
where the Central Government is satisfied that
such purchase or acquisition of certificates is due to a bonafide error on the
pat of the holder thereof, it may authorize payment of simple interest on the
face value of the certificate at the same rate as is admissible for the time
being in force for the type of saving accounts in the post office savings bank
with which such holder is entitled to open under the provisions of the Post
Office Savings Account Rules, 1981.
To claim benefit under the above said
provision,as held in the above decision it is not necessary, that the holding
of Kisan Vikas Patras must be, regular.
The heading for Rule 13 itself reds Excess or irregular holdings , thereby, indicating even, for a person having irregular holdings, is
entitled to claim interest, provided they have acquired the certificates
bonofidely. If the certificate was
possessed by the holder on regular basis, then automatically he will be
entitled to the interest, for which they need not depend upon this
proviso. Thus, based upon the proviso,
we are inclined to concede the interest claimed, by the complainant, though not
to the entire extent.
11. In the Chief Post Master, Chennai &
Another Vs. M/s. Sun Beam Courier Pvt. Ltd., the National Commission had an
occasion to consider the issuance of National Saving Certificate, contrary to
Rule 4 of NSC Rules 1989, wherein the District Forum had allowed 9% interest,
alongwith maturity amount. In this case,
a Supreme Court ruling was referred, and based upon the earlier direction,
which was in pursuance, to the instruction from the Finance Ministry, taking
the same as precedent, a direction has been issued, to pay interest on the face
value of the deposit amount, at 6% p.a., from the date of deposit, till
realization. We feel in this case also,
the above policy could be adopted, considering the fact that the complainant
could have acquired the Kisan Vikas Patras under bonofide error, and the
further fact being, the opposite party had the benefit of the amount for all
these years. By reading the above
ruling, and proviso to Rule 13, we justify in awarding interest, at 6% p.a.,
from the date of deposit, till realization, on the face value of the
deposit. For these reasons, the order of
the District Forum has to be modified, since the complainant was not competent,
to acquire KVPs as per rules, as well not entitled to claim interest as of
right, including the matured amount, as mentioned there in.
12. In
the result, the appeal is allowed in part, modifying the order of the District
Forum in O.P.No.17/2006 dt.13.11.2006, directing the opposite party to pay
Rs.25000/-, alongwith interest @ 6% p.a., from the respective dates of purchase
of Kisan Vikas Patras, on the face value of the deposited amount, till
realization. Time for payment two
months, failing which the complainant is at liberty to invoke Sec.25 or 27 of
Consumer Protection Act. There will be no order as to cost throughout.
S.SAMBANDAM VASUGI
RAMANAN M. THANIKACHALAM
MEMBER
II MEMBER I PRESIDENT
INDEX : YES / NO
Rsh/d/mtj/FB/Post office