Superintendent of Post Offices, Postal Division, Tonk ( Raj.) and Others Vs. Geeta Sharma and Others - Court Judgment

1. Since on similar set of facts common order passed by the District Forum, Tonk in nine complaints is under challenge, all the above appeals have been heard together and are being decided by this common order.

2. All the above nine complainants are residents of a small township Niwai in District Tonk of Rajasthan. To encourage small saving scheme a Special Senior Citizen Saving Scheme was launched by the Central Government in the year 2004. Being the senior citizens all the nine complainants deposited Rs. 27 lacs in their individual account of Rs. 1 lakh each at different times between 2006-2007. After depositing the above amount under the scheme referred above, the complainants were also paid regular interest on the amount deposited by them upto December 2008. However, as has been alleged by the appellants a notice dated 28.7.2009 was issued to all the complainants that in view of some audit objections all the accounts opened by them under the particular scheme were irregular and against the provisions of the scheme. Thus, they were not entitled for any interest on the amount so deposited. No interest from January 2009 was paid to any complainant however, the amount deposited by them is still lying with the appellants in the individual accounts.

3. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that under the Senior Citizen Saving Scheme only Rs. 99,000/- could be deposited in each account at a time thus, as per the scheme no interest could be paid to the complainants since accounts had been opened in violation of terms of the scheme. Some vague allegation of connivance of complainants with the agent concerned have also been whispered and half heartedly it has also been submitted that after receiving the notice, the complainants should have closed their individual accounts and withdrawn the amount so deposited by them in the above scheme.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, we have carefully gone through the material on record.

Opening of the individual accounts under the particular scheme and payment of interest upto December 2008 is not disputed so far. It is also not a case where all the accounts were opened at the same time and the same day. The concerned Superintendent of Post Offices , where the accounts were opened, is suppose to aware of all the conditions of the scheme and the presumption is rather against the concerned Postmaster and the agent who fully knowing the conditions of the scheme got deposited such a huge amount from the senior citizens. There is nothing on record to show that after so called audit objections, the copy of which have not been placed on record, any action was taken by the authorities against the concerned Superintendent of Post Offices who got the amount deposited under the particular scheme or even against the so called agent. Otherwise also both the concerned persons might have received their commission or even appreciation letters for such huge deposits under the scheme. It has not been proved at all by an affidavit or other evidence that the complainants were fully explained the terms and conditions of the scheme before getting their signatures on the particular form. The entire amount so deposited is still lying with the appellants for last more than five years.

5. As per avernments made by the appellants this was a welfare scheme to encourage the small savings more particularly the senior citizens. The complainants appear to be the residents of small township and not very educated . They deposited their hard earned savings in the particular scheme with the hope and aspiration and great expectations that they will get regular interest and their savings will be secure under the scheme of the Central Government. The defence taken by the appellants after more than two years of the initial deposit of the individual accounts is not only unfortunate, unfair, unjustified , irrational and further against the very concept of social welfare which can clearly be turned as unfair trade practice and sheer exploitation of the public and the consumer more particularly the senior citizens. Such practice cannot be expected from any department of the Central Government and can only be depricated. It may be noticed that even on small deposits an interest is paid regularly thus how the complainants can be denied any interest after keeping such huge amount for more than five years. In the banking system also even the Reserve Bank of India would not have appreciated such practice. As a matter of fact the appellants suo- motto should have accepted the irregularity committed by them and given proper relief to the concerned complainants.

6. Since on the basis of evidence and material on record, the District Forum has used propr discretion in granting appropriate relief to the respective respondents/ complainants, we find no error or illegality in the impugned order dated 16.3.2012 passed by the District Forum, Tonk so as to call for any further interference in the above appeals and the same are dismissed accordingly as having no merits. The appellants may now comply with the directions issued by the District Forum, Tonk within thirty days. However, the appellants shall be at liberty to withdraw the amount deposited by them before the District Forum in the above appeals.