(1.) by consent of the learned Advocates for the parties, all the three appeals have been heard together as similar questions arise therein.
(2.) All the three appeals arise from order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kheda at Nadiad in Complaint Application Nos.53, 54 and 55 of 2002 on 31.3.2003, dismissing the complaint.
(3.) Facts which are not in dispute might broadly be recapitulated. Five brothers deposited Rs.1,98,000/- each jointly with their mother in each of the deposits under the Monthly Income Scheme of the opponent Postal Department and deposits receipts bearing No.543442 to 543446 came to be issued. The deposits were maturing on 17.6.2001 upon expiry of five years of the term of the deposits. In the meantime it was noticed that there was breach of Rule 3 read with Rule 4 of the Post Office (Monthly Income Account) Rules, 1987. This resulted into repayment of first two deposit receipts in their entirety without recovering back the monthly interest paid. Even the bonus was paid. The dispute between the parties arose regarding remaining three deposits. The monthly interest paid came to be recovered and balance amount came to be drawn as required to be refunded. The complainants moved the learned Forum insofar as the said three deposits were concerned. During the pendency of the complaints, accounts made up and payments were made pursuant to the notification dated 20.8.2001 and 4.7.1999 respectively under Rules 11 and 19 and there is no dispute with regard to such accounts even in these appeals. What has been disputed is the deduction of monthly interest insofar as mother was concerned as her share of the limit stood exhausted in respect of first two deposits which was paid in entirety. The questions which arise in these appeals, therefore, relate to- (1) The accounts even for the three remaining deposits cannot be said to be joint accounts and should be treated as separate accounts and no deduction should be allowed. (2) The payments were made during the pendency of the complaint on 21.10.2002 whereas the deposits matured on 17.6.2001 and, therefore, the complainants would be entitled to payment of interest at the stipulated rate of 12% for delayed payment. (3) Acceptance of the deposits by the opponent Postal Department and payment of interest after considerably long period in all the accounts would result into waiver of the right of the opponent Postal Department in levying recovery.