Post Master General Vs. S.A.F. Abbas. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

Judgment:

K.P. Sinha, President:

1.  This is an appeal against the order of the Patna District Forum on 12.7.91 read with the order of the District Forum dated 20.8.90 by which orders the District Forum have allowed an interest of Rs. 475/- to be paid to the complainant on the 3% conversion loan purchased by the complainant respondent in 1946 on behalf of Khujwa Education Trust. Fund (Account No. I) and Khujwa Poor Fund (Account No. II) for rendering financial assistance to the needy in Khujwa village. The District Forum have also allowed a compensation of Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant respondent for the deficiency in services of the PandT Department in connection with this 3% Conversion Loan. When the District Forum passed the order dated 20.8.90 an appeal was filed before the State Commission. It was, however, found from this order that it was not a final order in as much as the District Forum had observed in this order dated 20.8.90 that final order would be passed by the District Forum after the complainant and the PandT Department presented their respective accounts before the District Forum and thereafter the District Forum would give its finding about any sum payable as interest to the complainant. In view of this observation of the District Forum the State  Commission correcterised the appeal before it (Appeal No. 40/90) as premature and accordingly dismissed it. The State Commission also observed that after the final orders of the District Forum were passed and the PandT Department are not satisfied with the findings, they will be at liberty to assail the findings of the District Forum before the State Commission.

2. In view of the Commissions above observations the District Forum passed its order dated 12.7.91 calculating the sum of Rs. 475/- as payable to the complainant respondent as interest. A compensation of Rs. 1,000/- as allowed to the complainant in the orders of the District Forum on 20.8.90 was allowed to stand as such. The District Forum in its order dated 12.7.91 observed that this order would be read with the earlier orders of the District Forum dated 20.8.90. In effect, therefore, the award of compensation of Rs. 1,000/- was allowed. The present appeal has been filed against these awards of interest and compensation payable to the complainant respondent.

3. The facts of the case are that the complainant on behalf of the Khujwa Education Trust Fund and Khujwa Village Poor Fund invested Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 6,000/- respectively on 3% Conversion Loan 1946. For the convenience of the investor the Post Offices offered to keep in safe custody the G.P. Notes and collect half-yearly interest on them when due and credit the same in the Postal Savings Bank Accounts of the investors. Accordingly, the G.P. Notes relating to the two investments mentioned above were entrusted to the PandT Department. The principal amount of these investment was notified as re-payable on 16.9.86. The complainant respondent, however, could get the credit of the principal amount only on 11.4.87 instead of 16.9.86 and the District Forum has allowed interest for this delay calculated Rs. 475/- as payable to the complainant. The appellant contend that the proceedings before the District Forum were not maintainable at air because the complainant respondent was not a consumer under Section 2(d) of the Act as no goods were purchased nor any services hired by him for consideration. The appellant have also challenged the findings of the District Forum on merit of the award of interest which we shall presently discuss hereinafter.

4. As to the contention of the appellant in Para 6 of the Memo of Appeal that, the District Forum have given no finding about the maintainability of the proceedings before them and the Consumer  Protection Act, 1986, it is not quite correct. The District Forum has discussed the issue of their jurisdiction. In the order dated 12.7.91 the District Forum have held that the consumer under the Act is not a consumer only with regard to sale and purchase of goods but also a consumer with regard to services and the District Forum have found that there was deficiency in the services rendered to the complainant respondent by the PandT Department. “Sewaon Main Truti Najar Aati Hai Iss Liye Jila Forum Ko Iss Per Poora Chhetradhikar Hai”. When there was a deficiency in services as discussed by the District Forum in that order and there was a complaint against the PandT Department for this deficiency, this is a matter which would be a subject for adjudication by the bodies under the Act meant for redressal of consumer greviances. During argument it was argued before us that there was no hiring of the services of PandT Department for a consideration as required under the definition of the Act. It was pointed to the learned advocate for the PandT Department that the mere fact that the PandT Department kept money for 40 years which must have been utilised by them for their purposes or earned interest on the same, this could be construed as consideration for services rendered to the complainant by the Department. The learned advocate further submitted that these matter should properly be resolved under the provisions of Post and Telegraphs Act and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 should, therefore, not be invoked in such complaint. Suffice it would to say in this regard that Section 3 -of the Consumer Protection Act lays down that the provisions of this Act will-be in addition to other Act. We, therefore, hold that this is a fit case for adjudication by the various for a under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As for the findings of the District Forum on the merits on the complaint filed before it, the appellant contend that as per notification, 3% Conversion Loan 1946 matured for payment on 16.9.86. But the complainant did not promptly deposited security/acknowledgement for discharge. It was only on 14.1.87 that the respondent deposited the acknowledgment/securities with Post Master General, Bihar, Patna instead of Post Master General Post Office, Patna. Thereafter as per direction of the Accounts Officer Postal, Calcutta the complainant was advised to submit his claim for matured value of the G.P. Notes and accordingly the complainant submitted the same on 8.4.87 and on 11.4.87 the matured value of the G.P. Notes has been credited to the Pass Book Account of the complainant. It  was further argued that in view of the Circular No. 12/86 of Reserve Bank of India, no interest is payable on repayment of 3% Conversion Loan of 1946 after the date of its maturity i.e. after 16.9.86 till 11.4.87. The learned advocate for the appellant also pointed to the appreciation of the complainant respondent conveyed to the Postal Authorities of their prompt action by his letter dated 17.4.87. It was, therefore, argued that there was no deficiency in service. Interest allowed by the District Forum was not payable and, therefore, there was no case for compensation as decided by the District Forum. The respondent, who appeared personally pointed that as early May, 1986 he had started correspondence with the Post Master, Pataliputra P.O. to avoid loss of interest but numerous letters and visits produced no result and that is why he approached to the highest functionary of the State whose directions also seem not to have been complied by the functionaries lower down the ladder. It is also contended by the respondent that since the Postal Department was keeping the securities under their safe custody they should have taken due steps to get the matured credited to Savings Bank Account of the complainant.

5. There is force in the contention of the complainant that the PandT Department did not take prompt steps with regard to crediting the principal on maturity of 3% Conversion Loan 1946 on the due date. The matter had been taken up with the Post Master, Pataliputra, Patna in May, 1986 and the advice to the complainant to file his claim for maturity value in the absence or the G.P. Notes being with him, could have been tendered to him earlier than 8.4.87 on which date it was actually done. The appellant has himself contended that the respondent deposited on 14.1.87 the acknowledgment/securities in the office of the Post Master General instead of Post Master General, Post Office. The Post Master General forwarded the matter to the Post Master General Post Office. The latter office could have advised the complainant alongwith forwarding the acknowledgment/securities to the Director of Account, Calcutta. It is difficult to think that such a Senior Officer was not aware of the procedure to be followed in such cases. Proper advice to the complainant could have come from him which was made available only three months alter. The securities of the complainant were lying with the Postal Department itself at Calcutta and yet the complainant suffered even when he was alert as investor to take up, the  matter with regard to securities in May, 1986 itself when the maturity was due in September, 1986 i.e. four months before the due date still there has been a delay of more than seven months in crediting accounts with the maturity value of the securities. It is clearly evident that there has been a deficiency in service on behalf of the PandT Department. However, since the R.B.I. circular clearly prohibited payment of any interest after the maturity date no interest on this account could be payable to the complainant and, therefore, we cannot uphold the findings of the District Forum for payment of Rs. 475/- as interest between 16.9.86 and i 1.4.87. This was not payable at all by the Post Office under circular of the Reserve Bank of India.

6. As regards compensation we have already dealt with above the deficiency in the service of the PandT Department with regard to crediting his accounts with the maturity value of the securities. We would further point out that the interest on the accounts which should have been credited in the Saving Bank Accounts were not credited correctly and there was a shortage of credit of Rs. 854.50 as interest in account of Khujwa Education Trust Fund and a shortage of Rs. 430.50 in Khujwa Village Poor Fund Account. It was only on 25.5.90 that the District Forum was communicated that the shortages in interest have been made good and the correct amounts credited to the account of the complainant respondent. The chart submitted along with the letter of the Chief Postmaster General, G.P.O. Patna addressed to the District Forum shows that there was shortage in interest calculation for all the years from 79-80 onwards. The services rendered to the complainant with regard to the interest and credit of maturity value of the principal on 3% Conversion Loan were obviously deficient and due care taken was not taken by the department in this regard. We do not, therefore, see any reason to interfere with the finding of the District Forum who awarded compensation of Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant for all the troubles and tribulations that he had to suffer on account of this deficiency in the services of the PandT Department. The fact that inspite of his troubles the complainant appreciated the services of the PandT Department to which the learned advocate for the complainant has made pointed reference, it only shows the magnanimity of the complainant respondent. Such promptness in the services of the PandT Department is not borne out by facts which we have already discussed above. As a  matter of fact the complainant pleaded in the course of his arguments that the compensation allowed to him for mental injuries and financial worries suffered by him is inadequate and should be increased. If he was really dissatisfied with the amount of compensation allowed by the District Forum he should also have filed an appeal before us against that order. This had not been done.

7. In result, therefore, the appeal is partially allowed and the award of compensation of Rs. 1,000/- to the respondent is uphold.

Appeal partly allowed.