Judgment:
HONBLE M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT.
1. The opposite parties before the lower forum in OP.No.89/2002, are the appellants.
2. The complainants/ respondents, opened an Public Provident Fund Account, in the head Post office at Thanjavur on 31.3.1998, jointly. In all, the complainants have deposited with the 1st respondent a sum of Rs.46,500/-, which earned interest also, totaling a sum of Rs.53,730/- as on 16.5.2002. On 12.6.2002, the 1st opposite party directed the complainants to close their PPF account, and to get back the deposited amount only, without interest. Under the law, the complainants are entitled to get back, not only the deposited amount, but also the interest. All of a sudden, the 1st opposite party sent a sum of Rs.46,500/- alone, through cheque dt29.10.2002, which wad received by the complainants, under protest. The non-payment of interest amounts to deficiency in service, which caused mental agony also to the parties, for which the respondents are entitled to pay a sum of Rs.50000/-, in addition to interest.
3. The claim as narrated above, was opposed by the appellant/ opposite parties, filing a detailed written version, stating that opening joint account in PPF account, is not permissible and this being the position, the account opened by the complainants were closed, amount refunded, which cannot be described as deficiency in service, that the complainants have not suffered any damage, and this being the factual position, the question of claiming compensation also does not arise, since the opening of the account itself is irregular under the rules, then question of granting interest either compound or simple, as the case may be, will not arise for consideration.
4. On the above pleas, with other grounds, when the petition was resisted, the District Forum took the case for hearing, and at that time, six documents were exhibited, in addition to filing affidavits and written submissions. By evaluating the above materials, the District Forum came to the conclusion that as per the rules, Provident Fund Account cannot be opened in the joint name and therefore, the pre-closure of the account effected by the 1st opposite party, will not give any remedy to the complainant, and in fact no relief is also sought against such closure of account, that as per Rule 6 of the clause (2), the 1st opposite party is bound to pay interest to the complainants as provided therein, that even under the common law, applying the provisions of Indian Contract Act, for the benefits enjoyed, retaining the amount by the 1st opposite party, the complainants are entitled to claim interest. It is the further finding of the lower forum, that the complainants without knowing the prohibition, opened a joint account in their names, and the 1st opposite party alone had willfully and wantonly allowed the complainants to open such joint account in their names, thereby enriched itself by retaining the deposit amount for considerable period, not paying the interest. Thus concluding, a direction came to be issued as per order dt.20.3.03, directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.10,380/- by way of interest with 9% thereon, in addition to awarding cost of Rs.1000/-, which are under challenge before us.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, perused the written submissions made by either parties as well as the documents relied on by them.
6. There is no dispute before us regarding the opening of joint Public Provident Fund Account, deposit of a sum of Rs.46500/-, in the name of the respondents. It is also an admitted fact that Rs.46500/- was received by the complainants, without prejudice to their right, from the 1st respondent, after the closure of the joint account. As held by the lower forum, placing reliance upon the rules and regulations, which is not under challenge before us also, opening joint account in PPF is not permissible. Knowingly or unknowingly, the 1st opposite party allowed the complainants to open joint account and collected the amounts also, totaling a sum of Rs.46500/-, as seen from the pass book which is exhibited as Ex.A1. As on 16.5.2002, in the account of the complainants, there was a balance of Rs.53,730/-, which should include interest also, as recorded by the lower forum, in paragraph 8 of its order. Therefore, it is an admitted fact that for the deposited amount, the complainants are entitled to interest. It is not known, why the 1st opposite party/ 1st appellant, failed to return the interest to the complainants, since their amounts were collected, which would have earned interest. For the mistake committed by the appellants/ opposite parties, who are expected to know the rules and regulations, the complainants should not be allowed to suffer. The complainants, as common people, may not know the rules and regulations of the Provident Fund Account. It is presumed, and it should be construed also, that the respondents are fully aware of the rules and regulations. Therefore, they should not have allowed the complainants to open joint account, and having allowed to do so, and having collected the amount also, when they have closed the account as irregular, then under equity as well as under natural justice, they should have returned the earned interest and they should not be deprived of. No reason is alleged either acceptably or otherwise in the written version, as well as in the written statement. The learned counsel for the appellant also, when questioned, how they are entitled to retain the interest, unable to convince us, by showing any rules or any judicial precedent etc.
7. The District Forum, in its elaborate order, assigning convincing reasons, as seen from paragraph 11 of the order, has come to the conclusion that the 1st opposite party is bound to pay interest @ 12% p.a.,, which works out to Rs.10,380/-, should be directed to be paid, in which we find much legal flavour, not warranting our interference of any kind.
8. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is devoid of merits, and the same is liable to be dismissed.
9. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the order passed by the District Forum in OP.No.89/2002 dt.20.3.2003. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to cost throughout.