LAWS(NCD)-2003-3-112

OM PRAKASH Vs. POST OFFICE AND OTHERS

Decided On March 31, 2003
OM PRAKASH Appellant
V/S
Post Office And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Mrs. Prabha Swami, Amicus Curiae for the petitioner.

(2.) Petitioner, who was having 5 year recurring deposit accounts bearing Nos. 529 for an amount of Rs. 14,758 and 1329 for a sum of Rs. 20,000 filed a complaint before the District Forum against the respondents which was disposed of by the order dated 7.4.1999 in following terms :

(3.) Petitioner/Decree holder filed execution application under Sec. 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986 (for short the Act) to recover the amount awarded in terms of said order dated 7.4.1999. In execution proceedings, the respondents/judgment debtors, offered to pay the principal amount of two accounts with interest accruing in respect of Account No. 529, which the petitioner declined to accept claiming that he is entitled to interest in respect of Account No. 1329 also. Noticing the objection taken on behalf of respondents that under the Rules, a person cannot open 2 accounts in a post office and if a person opens 2 accounts without prior notice to the post office, then he is not entitled to interest in the 2nd account under the relevant Rules as also said order dated 7.4.1999, the District Forum dismissed the execution application upholding the said plea raised on behalf of respondents by the order dated 12.11.1999. Revision taken out against this order by the petitioner was dismissed by State Commission by the order dated 29.11.2000 affirming the order of District Forum. State Commission/District Forum have opined that as per the order dated 7.4.1999, the payment was to be made along with interest only under the Rules and as the Rules in this case do not provide for payment of interest in respect of said 2nd Account No. 1329, the petitioner is not entitled to interest in regard to that account. In our view, there is no illegality or jurisdictional error in either of the said two orders warranting for interference in revisional jurisdiction under Sec. 21(b) of the Act. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.