LexARULMIGHU DHANDAYUDHAPANISWAMY THIRUKOIL, PALANI, TAMIL NADU, THR. ITS JOINT COMMISSIONER versus THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POST OFFICES, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011) 10 S.C.R. 43 ARULMIGHU DHANDAYUDHAPANISWAMY THIRUKOIL, A PALANI, TAMIL NADU, THR. ITS JOINT COMMISSIONER v. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POST OFFICES, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 4995 of 2006) 8 JULY 13, 2011 [P. SATHASIVAM AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.] Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - s. 2(1)(g) - Deficiency C in service - Deposit of huge amount by the appellant-temple for five years under the Post Office Time Deposit Scheme - Appellant informed by Post Master that the Scheme had been discontinued for investment by institutions, thus amount deposited by temple refunded without interest - Complaint D filed by the appellant claiming interest on the ground of deficiency in service on part of the Post Master - Dismissed by the State Commission as also National Commission - On appeal held: In the light of the communication dated 01. 12. 1995 and in view of r. 17, failure to pay interest cannot E be construed as a case of deficiency in service in terms of s. 2(1)(g) - The factual finding arrived at by the State and the National Commission that the Post Master was ignorant of any Notification and as such the appellant did not get any interest for the substantial amount are upheld and thus, the F respondents cannot be fastened for deficiency in service in terms of law or contract - Post Office Savings Bank General Rules, 1981 - r. 17. Appellant-Temple had deposited a huge sum of money amounting to Rs.1,40,64,300/- with the Post Master G from 05.05.1995 to 16.08.1995 for a period of five years under the Post Office Time Deposit Scheme. The Post Master, Post Office accepted the said amount under the 43 H 44 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 10 S.C.R. A Scheme and issued the receipt for the same but later it was found that the Scheme had been discontinued for investment by institutions from 01.04.1995 and as such the amount deposited by the Temple was refunded without interest. The appellants filed complaint claiming B interest on the ground of deficiency in service on the part of the Post Master. The State Commission as also the National Commission dismissed the same. Therefore, the appellants filed the instant appeal. c Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 Since the deposits in the case on hand relate to Post Office Time Deposit Account, Rule 17 of the Post Office Savings Bank General Rules, 1981 is squarely applicable. The reading of Rule 17 makes it clear that if D any Account is found to have been opened in contravention of any Rule, the relevant Head Savings Bank may, at any time, cause the account to be closed and the deposits made be refunded to the depositor without interest [Para 6) [50-F-G] E 1.2 It is clear from the communication dated .01.12.1995 of the Post Master 3rd respondent that with effect from 01.04.1995 i.e. even prior to the deposits made by the appellant-Temple, investment by institutions under the Scheme was not permissible and in fact discontinued F from that date. The appellant-Temple is also an institution administered and under the control of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department of the State. Vide the above said communication, the Post Master, Palani informed the appellant to close all those G accounts since the same was not permissible. The communication dated 01.12.1995 also shows that all such accounts should be closed and the amounts so deposited are to be refunded without interest. The deposit accounts have been caused to be closed and the H ARULMIGHU DHANDAYUDHAPANISWAMYTHIRUKOIL, PALANI, 45 TAMIL NADU, THR. ITS JOINT COMM. v. DIR. GEN. OF POST OFFICES, DEPT. OF POST· amounts deposited have been returned to the depositors A without interest. Though the appellant claimed interest and insisted for the same on the ground of deficiency in service on the part of the Post Master, Palani, in view of Rule 17, the respondents are justified in declining to pay interest for the deposited amount since the same was not B permissible. In the light of Rule 17 of the Rules, it cannot be held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the respondents, 3rd respondent in particular. [Para 7] [52-C-G] c Postmaster Dargamitta, H.P. 0., Ne/lore vs. Raja Prameeelamma (Ms.) (1.998) ·9 SCC 706 - held applicable. · 1.3 It is true that when the appellant deposited a huge amount with the 3rd Respondent from 05.05.1995 to 16.08.1995 under the Scheme for a period of five years, D i
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.