UNION OF INDIA Vs. RAHUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 7.9.2012 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, 'the State Commission') in Appeal No. 567 of 2012 General Post Office through Superintendent & Ors. Vs. Rahul & Ors. by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.

(2.) XXX XXX XXX

(3.) Brief facts of the cases are that complainant/respondent, minor, opened Provident Fund Account (PPF) No.303038 dated 14.9.2001 with an amount of Rs.60,000/- and another Provident Fund Account (PPF) No. 303041 dated 20.9.2001 with an amount of Rs.40,000/- and amount was deposited for a period upto 20.9.2010. Complainant was also given coupon, Gold Coin and one Silver Coin, etc., by the OP and OP issued passbook. OP by letter dated 18.9.2010 intimated to the complainant that as complainant has opened two accounts; second account is irregular in contravention of PPF Rule and will not carry interest and OP vide cheque dated 27.1.2011 returned amount of Rs.40,000/- with interest. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that as per Rule 3(6) of PPF Rules 1968, one person can open only one account in his name and if more than one account is opened, subsequent account will be treated as irregular account which will not carry any interest so interest was not payable on second account and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP Nos. 1 & 2/petitioner to pay interest on Rs.40,000/- on second account upto its maturity date. Appeal filed by the OP was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.