|
advantageconsumer.com Consumer Protection Council, Rourkela |
|
|
|
advantageconsumer.com Consumer Protection Council, Rourkela |
|
|
|
Post Office
directed to pay interest for the deposit made with it, though it could be
in contravention of certain Rules.
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 769 OF 2018 (Against the Order dated 28/08/2017 in Appeal No. 985/2014 of the State Commission Gujarat) POST MASTER & ANR.
ORDERHEAD POST OFFICE, HIGH COURT ROAD, BHAVNAGAR. GUJARAT ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. BHAVNAGAR GRAHAK SURAKSHA MANDAL & ANR. THROUGH ITS SECRETARY SHRI HARKANTBHAI D. DESAI, SARDAR SMRUTI CRESCENT CIRCLE, BHAVNAGAR, GUJARAT 2. HUSAINALI MOHAMMADALI KAPASI MASUMBHAINI WADI, JANTA PLOT NO. 3-A, MAHUVA DISTRICT-BHAVNAGAR, GUJARAT ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL,PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. M. SHREESHA,MEMBER Dated : 03 Jan 2019 IA/4732/2018: Heard learned
Counsel for the Petitioners. Cause shown is sufficient. The delay
of 50 days in filing the Revision Petition is condoned.
REVISION PETITION Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the impugned order dated 28.8.2017, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat at Ahmedabad (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No.985/2014, whereby the Appeal preferred by the Petitioners against the order dated 31.7.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhavnagar (for short “the District Forum”) in C.C. No.15/13 has been dismissed. Respondent No.2 herein had opened a Senior Citizen Saving Scheme Account after his retirement through an agent, which was accepted by the Petitioner. However, on an audit objection being raised, the Petitioners closed the Account and asked Respondent No.2 to take back the amount minus the amount of interest already paid. Respondent No.2 did not accept the amount and raised the plea before the District Forum, which had allowed the Complaint on the ground that it was the duty and obligation of the Post Office not to open an account if Respondent No.2 was not entitled for such a facility. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied upon Rule 12 of the Senior Citizen Saving Scheme Rules, 2004 to contend that if the account has been opened contrary to the Rules, then the Petitioners are entitled not to pay any interest on the amount as also to close the account. Be that as it may, it is not in dispute that the Petitioners’ Organization has accepted the amount and opened the account, even though through an agent. That being the position, Respondent No.2 cannot be saddled with any responsibility and cannot be denied interest, even if Rule 12 prohibits for the same. The amount has remained in deposit with the Petitioners’ Organization and therefore, in normal system, any depositor is entitled to claim interest, which the District Forum as also the State Commission has rightly ordered. We do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order. Dismissed. ***************
Top |
|
|