POST MASTER ROURKELA Vs. RABINDRA NATH CHATTERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of the case have been described in detail in the main order and are not being repeated here. On a careful examination of the facts of the matter it is reasonably clear that the complainant (respondent in the appeal case) has become the victim of certain rules regarding the operation of the Monthly Income Scheme by the Post Office. These rules form part of the internal Rules of the Postal Authorities and an ordinary investor can hardly be expected to be conversant with those rules unless they are suitably briefed by the Post Office or the Agent. The Postal Authorities have depended upon the Rules 4, 10 (3) and 30 (1) for closing the joint account of the petitioner and his wife and recovering the interest already paid to them in that account. The appellant has drawn our attention to the signed statement of the complainant to the effect that "certified that we have no account having balance of more than Rs.4,08,000/-". This declaration was given by the complainant and his wife while opening the joint account for the amount of Rs.3,00,000/-. At that point of time the complainant was having an account in his single name for the amount of Rs.1,20,000/-. Firstly, it may be seen that the declaration was not exactly the same as prescribed in Rule 12 for opening MIS A/c, and in the process the declaration was far from unambiguous about the ceiling on deposits under the scheme. Secondly on the face of the declaration as quoted above, there was nothing wrong in it because at that point of time the petitioner and his wife were not having any joint account with a balance of Rs.4,08,000/-. Only in Rule 10 (3) of the Monthly Income Account rules it has been clarified that for the purpose of maximum balance, the depositor's shares in the balance of a joint account shall be taken as half of such balance if the account is held by two adults. Thus in the joint account for the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- the complainant's share would be notionally taken as Rs.1,50,000/- and this when added to the balance of Rs.1,20,000/- in his single account works out to Rs.2,70,000/- which exceeds the permitted ceiling of Rs.2,04,000/-. It is quite understandable that an ordinary investor will not be expected to know and comprehend such an intricate rule unless the Post Office or its Agent fully explains the matter to him. It is doubtful whether the investor was adequately briefed in the matter while opening the account. Moreover, the second deposit account, i. e. the joint account was opened within two months of opening the first account i. e. the single account and, therefore, it should have been very much possible for the Post Office to detect the alleged contravention of the relevant rule in this regard, had they been a little alert while opening the second account. It should be further noted that on account of an irregularity to the extent of Rs.66,000/- in the single account of the complainant the joint account for the full amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was treated as opened in contravention of the extant rules and in the process the complainant's wife also had to suffer for no fault of hers. From the above it would be clear that the Postal Authorities decided to act in a manner which proved to be the most unfavourable to the complainant, though the irregularity committed was of a considerably lower order. The Post Office could have dealt with the matter in several other ways for protecting the interest of the investor in a better manner. Moreover, what is more important is that the Government did utilise the amount of the deposit of Rs.3,00,000/- for a certain period but paid no interest at all to the complainant and his wife. In other words, the Government made free use of the money for the period of 16 months in question.

(2.) From the above it would be clear that the investor suffered due to bona fide lack of knowledge of the Postal Rules. If he had the mala fide intention of concealing the information about the first deposit, in all probability he would have opened the joint deposit account in some other Post Office and in that case it would have been almost impossible for the Postal Authorities to detect the same. In view of what has been stated above I think that the ends of justice would be met if the Postal Authorities return to the investor 50% of the amount of Rs.52,000/- which was recovered earlier from the investor as interest wrongly paid. I am aware that the extent rules do not provide for making such payment as interest. However this payment is being ordered as compensation to the complainant in view of the following : (i) Evidently the complainant was not adequately briefed about the Rules, Rule 10 (3) in particular. (ii) The declaration by the complainant and his wife while opening the joint account was far from unambiguous and was not in the format prescribed in Rule 12. (iii) The Postal Authorities failed to exercise the expected alertness and to do necessary checking when the second account was opened. (iv) The Government did make use of the amount of the second deposit for about 16 months free of cost.

(3.) Accordingly it is ordered that the O. P. (appellant in the appeal case) shall pay a sum of Rs.26,000/- as compensation to the complainant within a period of two months from the date of this order and, in default, pay interest @ 10% p. a. till realisation by the complainant. The impugned order of the Forum is modified as indicated above and the appeal is accordingly disposed of.