Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 34 (UTT)

Indian Postal Department v. Radhye Shyam Sharma

2003-03-21

K.D.SHAHI, SURENDER KUMAR

body2003
JUDGMENT 1. This is an appeal against the order dated 28.9.2002 passed by the District Forum, Hardwar. 2. A scheme was promulgated by the Indian Postal Department that a person who has deposited a sum of Rs. 4,08,000/ -, will get an interest of 12% per month total ,Rs. 4,080/- per month. The complainant deposited the said amount on 10.1.2000 Subsequently, when the complainant got the pass-book, it was revealed that instead of Rs. 4080/-, only Rs. 3740/ - is credited as interest in his pass-book. There is a deficiency of service in paying less interest of Rs. 340/- per month. The appellant did not hear, then the complaint was filed. 3. The case of the appellants is that on 15.1.2000, there was a notification by the Indian Government reducing the rate of interest from 12% to 11 % and since the amount of the cheque was received on 18.1.2000, he has been allowed interest at the rate of Rs. 3740/- only. 4. The learned Forum took the evidence of the parties and decided the case in favour of the complainant against which order, the present appeal has been filed. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records. Before the Forum, it was also disputed that the complainant is a consumer. However, that point was not raised here. The question is whether the claimant is entitled to get interest at the rate of 12% or 11 %. Firstly, the claimant has deposited the amount under a scheme to get interest at 12%. If the appellants were not ready to give interest as declared in the scheme and were to give interest at the rate of fresh notification, they should have clearly asked an option from the complainant whether he shall continue the deposit or will get interest at the rate of 11 % only under the new notification. Again to emphasise that the complainant has deposited the money to get benefits under the said scheme only and not otherwise. 6. Secondly also taking the worst case, the cheque given by the complainant was a local cheque. It should have been encashed the other day. But delay has been caused by the Postal Department in realising the cheque from the bank. 6. Secondly also taking the worst case, the cheque given by the complainant was a local cheque. It should have been encashed the other day. But delay has been caused by the Postal Department in realising the cheque from the bank. If the de posit was made on 11.1.2000, latest by 12/13.1.2000, the account of the complainant could have been opened and in that case, the complainant would have been entitled to the old rate without any hindrance. But if there is mistake, of the opposite parties, the complainant is not to suffer for that. Well, take the case of the deposit made by one Parmanand. For the comparison sake, we may discuss that the present complainant deposited the cheque on 10.1.2000 issued in the name of Rhartiya State Bank, Branch Ranipur. Shri Parmanand also deposited the same amount on 12.1.2000 and his cheque is .also of the State Bank of India. His cheque was encashed on 14.1.2000. Thus, Parmanand deposited after two days from the date of deposit by the complainant and his money was realised within 3 days only. Why the bank detained the cheque of the complainant for 7 days ? There is absolutely no allegation in the written statement of the appellant that on what particular date, the Hardwar Up-Dak Ghar sent the cheque for clearance to the bank. Ranipur or Hardwar Post Office, whatsoever it may be, all are the branches of Postal Department and if there is delay by Postal Department either from the Ranipur Dak Ghar or from the Hardwar Dak Ghar, it does not make any difference for the complainant and since the matter has not been properly replied that the Ranipur Branch has sent the cheque the same day to the Hardwar Branch. But neither in para 2 nor in the additional plea, it has been said when Hardwar Branch sent the cheque for clearance to the bank. In the absence of any such pleading, it shall be presumed that the negligence was on the part of the Postal Department. In the circumstances as the above, the complaint has rightly been allowed and the appeal calls for no interference. ORDER 7. The appeal is dismissed. Cost of the appeal shall be easy.