NARAYANDAS MUNDRA Vs. POST MASTER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question requiring decision in this Revision Petition, preferred by the Complainant, is whether he is entitled to receive interest on the subscriptions, made by him in his Provident Fund Account (PPF), opened under the Public Provident Fund Scheme, 1968, framed in terms of Section 3 of the Public Provident Fund Act, 1968, after the expiry of maturity period of 15 years, from the end of the year in which the initial subscription was made.

(2.) On 30.03.1991, the Complainant opened a PPF Account in Head Post Office, Dewas and continued making regular subscription in the Account. The maturity period for the account ended on 31.03.2006. The Complainant claims that on 10.01.2007, he exercised option to maintain the account and continue to subscribe for a further block period of 5 years, by submitting, requisite "Form H" and deposited Rs.70,000/- each on 03.08.2006 and 05.09.2007, which amounts were duly credited to his account along with interest for the years 2006-07 and 2007-08. According to the Complainant, when he visited the Post Office on 15.07.2008, for withdrawal of some amount from the said account, there was exchange of unpleasant words between him and the Post Master who, in retaliation, declared the account as irregular on the ground that "Form H", a mandatory requirement for continuation of PPF account for a further block of five years, had not been filed. Entries for the interest relating to the years 2005-06 to 2007-08, credited in the said account, were reversed. Having failed to elicit a positive response to his plea that "Form H" had in fact been filed, the Petitioner filed a complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dewas seeking a direction to the Post Office for payment of interest on the amounts deposited after 31.03.2006, amounting to Rs.31,035/-, along with interest on the said amount @ 12% p.a. with effect from 01.09.2008.

(3.) The District Forum came to the conclusion that in the absence of any document evidencing filing of "Form H" and in light of clarification {MOF (DEA) letter No. F/8/88-NS-II dated 11.08.1992} on Rule 9 (3A) of the Scheme, it could not be held that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the Post Office in not paying interest to the Petitioner after the expiry of initial period of 15 years. The complaint was dismissed accordingly. Being unsuccessful before the State Commission, the Petitioner has preferred this Revision Petition.