Consumer Protection Council, Rourkela                  ... Appellant
Vs.
Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices, Sundergarh and 4 others ... Respondents

Present : 
Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.C.Mishra, President, Mr. Biswanath Rath, Member and Mrs. Mrinalini Padhi, Member

Mr. P.C.Mishra, President : 

This appeal is directed against the decision of the District Forum, Sundergarh-II, Rourkela in C.D.Case No.298/93/Tr.94/95. The complainant is a registered Voluntary Organisation who espoused the cause of two employees of Rourkela Steel Plant, namely, K.B.Mishra and late K.C.Parida. Each of the aforesaid two persons deposited money under Salary Saving Scheme with the Postal authorities. Under the said scheme postal authorities shall get a monthly instalment from the salary of the Account holders. The maturity value of Sri K.B.Mishra's deposits was Rs. 5079.60 P and that of Sri K.C.Parida was Rs. 8,003/-. On the date of maturity, when the account holders wanted to withdraw their maturity amount it was found that some amount of each of the accounts have been withdrawn. On enquiry it was also found that the pass books of both the account holders were missing from the CTD Bureau office, who was the custodian of those pass books. Since then the account holders are deprived of getting their legitimate dues and when no steps were taken by the Postal authorities they have come up with this case praying for appropriate redressal and also prayed for compensation.

2. The Opposite parties 1 to 3 before the District Forum who are respondents 1 to 3 in this appeal filed their show cause admitting that both the aforesaid account holders had opened accounts in the Post Office under the Salary Saving Scheme. Sri Mishra had opened 10 years CTD account in which Rs. 30/- was the monthly instalment payable from his salary. Sri K.C.Parida had opened one five year RD Account in which a sum of Rs. 100/- was payable as monthly instalments being deducted from his salary. It was stated in the said show cause that as per the rule, the account holder is to authorise his employer to deduct the monthly instalments from his salary and the pass books are to be kept by the employer to transact business with the Postal authorities on behalf of account holders. It has also been provided that if the depositor intends to withdraw any amount be shall have to obtain pass books from the employer and receive the payment from the postal authorities observing the formalities. From the records of the Postal authorities, they found that as per the records an amount of Rs. 960/- was withdrawn from the account of K.B.Mishra on 25-4-84 and a sum of Rs. 2650/- was withdrawn from the account of K.C.Parida on 10-12-93. When the account holders denied to have withdrawn such amounts, departmental enquiry was conducted. But during such enquiry, the withdrawal vouchers could not be traced out. They asked the depositors to produce their pass books for verification, but they did not produce their pass books, as such no other enquiry could be conducted.It has been suggested that failure to produce the pass book may entail the acceptance by the depositor of the balance in the post office ledger as final. They referred to certain rules of Post office guide part-I and contended that the Postal authorities are not responsible for any fraudulent withdrawal by a person obtaining possession of a pass book from the depositors. Opposite parties 4 and 5 in their written version stated that the CTD Bureau is located in the office provided by the Rourkela Steel Plant with all furnitures and almirahas for keeping the pass books of the employees of Rourkela Steel Plant through pay roll in their CTD/RD accounts. Thus the CTD pass books of the depositors were not with the employer but with the postal authorities. It is further stated in their show cause that in case of withdrawl of money on maturity, the collecting agents are to issue authorisation identifying the signature of the depositors without which the CTD Bureau is not supposed to pay any amount. Their stand was that the employees were not at all responsible for the alleged withdrawal from the accounts of the aforesaid account holders. The District Forum after analysing the position which was practically admitted before it, came to the conclusion that there is nothing on record to establish that the account holders on whose behalf the complaint petition has been filed has ever withdrawn the amount as noted above from their respective accounts. The forum also held that they are entitled to receive the full maturity value without deducting any amount on the plea that the same was previously withdrawn by them. In the result, the complaint peition was allowed to the extent that the postal authorities are to pay the maturity amount to the concerned account holders deducting the amount if any paid by them. They were also directed to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of maturity till the date of payment. The complainants have filed this appeal on the ground that the ultimate order passed by the District Forum is conclusive in as much as the Dirict Forum clearly held that the account holders have not withdrawn any amount prior to the date of maturity but at the same time directed payment of the maturity value deducting the withdrawal made by them. There is no reason for such conclusion if the aforesaid direction is read with paragraph-4 of the decision. In the paragraph-4 it has been clearly stated by the District Forum that Sri Parida (account holder bearing no. 1083676) has been paid a sum of Rs. 6,148.50 P in the month of January, 1990 after deducting a sum of Rs. 2,650/- which he denies to have received. But the other account holder has not been paid any amount. In the aforesaid context the final direction passed by the District Forum has to be construed to mean that Sri Parida has to be paid full maturity value deducting a sum of Rs. 6,148.50 P which has been paid to him by the postal authorities. So far as the other account holder is concerned he has not been paid any amount towards the maturity value of his deposit and therefore the entire maturity value has to be paid to him. The District Forum has however directed that the postal authorities shall also be liable to pay interest on the matured value of the respective accounts at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of maturity till the date of payment. The aforesaid direction means that each of the account holders will be entitled to interest on the maturity value from the date of maturity till the date of payment of the same. It must be kept in mind that Sri Parida was paid a sum of Rs. 6,148.50 P in January 1990 and therefore, the said amount should carry interest from the date of maturity till the date of payment. The balance amount payable to him as per the direction of the District Forum would also carry interest from the date of payment of the aforesaid sum of Rs. 6,148.50 P till the date of payment. With the aforesaid direction the appeal is disposed of.