JUDGMENT Ram Mohan Reddy J., The petitioners, arraigned as respondents in Complaint No.1 09/ 2005 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mysore, (for short ‘District Forum’) instituted by the respondent herein, suffered an Order dated 28-12-2005 Annexure-”C” holding the petitioners liable to damages of Rs.20,000/- on account of deficiency of service, under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ‘Act’). The complainant-respondent herein, too, suffered an order of rejection of the claim for Rs.2,03,000/-. The petitioners and the respondent filed separate Appeals bearing Nos. 487/2006 and 188/2006, respectively, before the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (for short ‘State Commission’) whence, by Order dated 9-4-2007 Annexure-”D”, Appeal No. 188/2006 of the respondent was allowed and Appeal No.487/2006 of the petitioners was rejected. Hence this Writ petition. 2. The respondent-complainant, in her complaint to the District Forum under the Act stated that she deposited amounts on different dates under the Monthly Income Scheme (for short MIS Account), in the Nanjumalige and Lakshmipuram Post Offices at Mysore, in addition opened one S.B. Account in each of the said Post Offices. The complainant authorised her son by name V.C. Nagaraj to draw the interest amount by affixing her signatures on Withdrawal forms on two occasions, as she was unable to go over to the Post Offices on account of her old age and trail health. She further stated that after the death of her son VC. Nagaraj during the year 2004, when she approached the petitioners for withdrawal of the interest amount from her MIS account, she was informed that the accounts were closed, and that the maturity amount was withdrawn and paid to V.C. Nagaraj. This prompted the respondent-complainant to file the complaint for recovery of the money and damages for deficiency in service. 3. The petitioners, on notice, entered appearance in the proceedings and filed their version Annexure- “B” interalia contending that the petitioner maintained S.B. Account No.447176 at Lakshmipuram Post Office and S.B. Account No.973678 at Nanjumalige Post Office, in addition to MIS Account No.31639 and 31640 at Nanjumalige Post Office for Rs.30,000/- each and Account Nos. 105121, 105339, 106490, 107042 and 107043 at Lakshmipuram Post Office for Rs.6,000/-, Rs.12,000/-, Rs.30,000/-, Rs.50,000/- and Rs.50,000/-, respectively. 105121, 105339, 106490, 107042 and 107043 at Lakshmipuram Post Office for Rs.6,000/-, Rs.12,000/-, Rs.30,000/-, Rs.50,000/- and Rs.50,000/-, respectively. According to the petitioners, one V.C. Nagaraj claiming to be the son of the respondent produced the Withdrawal slips duly signed by the respondent, along with the Passbooks and periodically withdrew the monies from the accounts. However, between 31-05-2003 to 10-10-2003, on the basis of the Withdrawal slips and the Passbooks, the said V.C. Nagaraj sought for and secured premature closure of the MIS Accounts and received their maturity value in cash. The payment in cash, it is said, was on humanitarian consideration. Alleging that the complainant was fully aware of the withdrawal of the amounts coupled with the fact that the instructions in the Passbook clamped responsibility on the respondent-complainant in the event of any negligence, the payments in cash made to V.C. Nagaraj, were sought to be justified. In addition, it was contended that the complainant, during the lifetime of VC. Nagaraj, did not lodge any complaint with the petitioners, but after his death, filed the complaint on 26-04-2005. 4. The respondent-complainant examined herself as PW-1 while the petitioners examined one Naviraj Ariga, Assistant Superintendent of Post Office as RW-1 and another Y Suryaprasad, Document Expert as RW-2. Documents A-1 to A-7, B-1 to B-7, C-1 to C-4 were marked in evidence. The District Forum, having regard to the pleadings of the parties, framed the following points for consideration: (i) Whether the complainant is entitled for refund of the entire amount of Rs.2,03,000/- towards 7 MIS Accounts? (ii) Whether the complainant is entitled for interest on such amount, and damages of Rs.25,000/towards mentally agony? (iii) Whether complainant has proved that all amounts were withdrawn from her 7 M.I.S. accounts without her signatures on withdrawal forms? (iv) Whether there is any deficiency in service, on the part of the O.P, if so, to what extent? (v) Whether this complaint is not maintainable? 5. The District Forum, on appreciating the evidence both oral and documentary, answered Point No.3 in the negative, against the complainant, and Point Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 against the petitioner- ‘ opposite parties and awarded damages of Rs.20,000/- by the Order dated 28-12-2005 Annexure-”C”. 6. (v) Whether this complaint is not maintainable? 5. The District Forum, on appreciating the evidence both oral and documentary, answered Point No.3 in the negative, against the complainant, and Point Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 against the petitioner- ‘ opposite parties and awarded damages of Rs.20,000/- by the Order dated 28-12-2005 Annexure-”C”. 6. The respondent, aggrieved by the said order, negativing the claim for recovery of monies in the MIS Accounts, preferred Appeal No. 188/2006 before the State Commission while the petitioners, aggrieved by the finding on Point Nos. 1, 2,4 and 5 and the direction to pay damages of Rs.20,000/-, preferred Appeal No.487/2006 before the State Commission. The State Commission, having regard to the pleadings of the parties and the evidence both oral and documentary laid before the District Forum, raised the following point for consideration: “Now the question for consideration is whether the payment of money to the son of the Complainant prematurely by closing the MISAs is in accordance with the provisions regulating payment of money under MISA.” 7. Making reference to Rule 4,5(2) and 10 of the Post Office (Monthly Income Account) Rules, 1987 coupled with Clause (vii) (b) of Chapter 21 relating to Monthly Income Scheme, it was held that the complainant having not made an application to close the M.I.S. Accounts, the petitioners could not have permitted premature closure of the accounts on the basis of Withdrawal Form (SB-7). In addition, the State Commission held that on account of Clause 144 of the Premature Closure of RD Accounts and the direction contained in Clause 6 of the Order No.5-20/UP-06/2000 INV dated 28/29-08-2001, the opposite party ought not to have made payments in cash beyond Rs.20,000/-. Grounded on the aforesaid findings, the State Commission concluded that the actions of the opposite party tantamounted to deficiency in service and accordingly, allowed the appeal of the respondent-complainant and directed payment of Rs.2,03,000/- with interest at 9% PA from the respective dates of maturity of the amounts deposited; Rs.50,000/- as compensation and costs of Rs. 10,000/-. 8. Grounded on the aforesaid findings, the State Commission concluded that the actions of the opposite party tantamounted to deficiency in service and accordingly, allowed the appeal of the respondent-complainant and directed payment of Rs.2,03,000/- with interest at 9% PA from the respective dates of maturity of the amounts deposited; Rs.50,000/- as compensation and costs of Rs. 10,000/-. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioners, while not disputing the fact that Rule 10 of the Post Office (Monthly Income Account) Rules, 1987 (for short ‘Rules’), permitted premature withdrawal of the deposit on an application made by the depositor, nevertheless contends that there is no prescribed form of application to be made by the depositor for premature withdrawal under the said rule, but by practice, Form SB-7 for withdrawal of amount of interest has been in use for premature withdrawals too. According to the Learned Counsel, the Fora fell in error in not noticing the said relevant fact Learned Counsel in addition, while not disputing that the payment of maturity of value of the amount if over Rs.20,000/- is to be made by Cheque and not in cash as stated in Rule 14 of the General orders extracted in the order of the District Forum, contends that the amounts in excess of Rs.20,000/- in respect of the 5 out of 7 accounts were paid in cash as a special case, on humanitarian grounds. The petitioners-opposite, parties seek to support the finding of the District forum that the respondent-complainant affixed her signature to the withdrawal form SB-7 Annexure-”B” series which when presented alongwith the relevant passbooks, the basis for premature closure and payment in cash to V.C. Nagaraj, being the making of the respondent disentitled her from recovering the amounts. 9. There is no dispute over the fact that the respondent opened two MIS Accounts by depositing Rs.30,000/- each in Nanjumalige Post Office and five accounts by depositing Rs.6,000/-; Rs.12,000/- ; Rs.30,000/-; Rs.50,000/- and Rs.50,000/- in Lakshmipuram Post Office at Mysore, on different dates, due to mature for payment, six years thereafter. That the aforesaid MIS Accounts were prematurely closed and the maturity amount paid in cash to one V.C. Nagaraj, the son of the depositor, is held against the respondent, by the District Forum. The Departmental enquiry into the premature closing of the Accounts and payment in cash is said to have resulted in a serious reprimand of the employees concerned. 10. The Departmental enquiry into the premature closing of the Accounts and payment in cash is said to have resulted in a serious reprimand of the employees concerned. 10. Indisputably, the standing instructions mentioned on the M.I.S deposit receipts Annexure-”A” series as well as the averments setout in the affidavit dated 4-7-2005 of one Naviraja Ariga, in lieu of recording examination-in-chief, the witness for the petitioners, that the accreditation to the MIS Accounts be automatically credited to the respondent’s Savings Bank Account No.447176 in Nanjumalige Post Office and No.973678 in Lakshmipuram Post Office are well established in evidence. The fact that the Post Offices in question permitted, on two occasions, withdrawal of interest amount accrued under the M.I.S. Scheme and credited to the aforesaid S.B. Accounts establishes that the respondent had affixed her signatures on the Withdrawal Forms SB-7 for withdrawing the interest amount from the Savings Banks Accounts and not for either closure of the M.I.S. Account or for payment of the maturity value on premature closure. The documents Annexure- “B” series being withdrawal forms SB-7 disclose that they are to be used for the withdrawal of monies from the Savings Bank Accounts. The use of SB-7 form for withdrawal of interest is provided in Clause (vii)(b) of Chapter 21 relating to Monthly Income Scheme Account which reads thus: “(b) By filling up application for withdrawal: The depositor will present an application for withdrawal (SB-7) for the amount of interest. The amount will be paid either in cash or by cheque at the option of the depositor. The Sub-Postmaster will obtain cheque for the required amount in the name of the depositor from the head office. The entry of payment by cash or cheque will be made in the pass book, MIS ledger long book and LOT.” (emphasis supplied) 11. The ‘Rules’ provide for opening of Account. Rule 5 (2) states that except as provided in Rule 10, no withdrawal shall be permitted under the rules before the expiry of a period of six years from the date of opening of an account. The ‘Rules’ provide for opening of Account. Rule 5 (2) states that except as provided in Rule 10, no withdrawal shall be permitted under the rules before the expiry of a period of six years from the date of opening of an account. Rule 10 reads thus: “Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (2) of Rule 5, on an application made by the depositor in this regard, he may be permitted to withdraw the deposit and close the account any time after expiry of a period of one year from the date of opening of such account, subject to the condition that all amount equal to 3.50 percent of the deposit shall be deducted and remainder paid to him. Provided that no such deduction shall be made if the account is closed after expiry of three years from the date of opening of such account.” 12. The fact that there was no prescribed application form for premature closure of the MIS Accounts and that the respondent had made no separate application with a request for premature closure, in the fact situation, it was for the petitioner to lay relevant material constituting substantial legal evidence of a practice and procedure of accepting withdrawal form SB-7 for premature closure of Monthly Income Scheme Account. The oral evidence of Naviraj Ariga, the witness for the petitioners, is as scanty as it can be and is not in the direction of establishing either procedure or practice as contended. In this view of the matter, it cannot but be said that the petitioners failed to establish that the premature closure of the M.I.S Accounts without an application from the depositor. The petitioners action being neither just, legal nor proper, tantamounts to deficiency in service. Looking at it from any angle, the petitioners had acted contrary to the roles and scheme in the matter of premature closure of the respondent’s M.I.S. Accounts based on the withdrawal forms SB-7. The conclusion of the District Forum disentitling the respondent to recover the maturity amount under the M.I.S. accounts, said to have been made over to V.C. Nagaraj on the basis of SB-7 forms, in our opinion, was correctly set-aside by the State Commission. No exception can be taken to the said finding of the State Commission. 13. The conclusion of the District Forum disentitling the respondent to recover the maturity amount under the M.I.S. accounts, said to have been made over to V.C. Nagaraj on the basis of SB-7 forms, in our opinion, was correctly set-aside by the State Commission. No exception can be taken to the said finding of the State Commission. 13. The payment of maturity value on closure of the 5 out of 7 accounts being admittedly in excess of Rs.20,000/- while: two accounts were Rs.6,000/- and Rs.12,000/- respectively, the petitioners were bound to issue cheques as directed in Clause (6) of the Order No.5-20/UP-06/2000 INV dated 28/29-08-2001. The clarification of the Union of India over the issue of cheques wherever the value of payment is more than Rs.20,000/- as extracted in the order of the State Commission, goes without saying that the petitioners contrary to instructions, without authority, made payment in cash of the maturity value on closure of the respondent’s M.I.S. Accounts. The oral say of Naviraj Ariga RW-1 that in case there is insistence for cash payment, on request, there is provision to pay the amount in cash, is not supported by relevant material. We are in agreement with the conclusions arrived at by the State Commission that there was a legal deficiency in the matter of payment of the amounts in cash instead of in cheque. 14. It is well-settled law that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has a wide reach and the Commission has jurisdiction even in cases of service rendered by the statutory authorities and such authorities become liable to compensate for misfeasance in public office, that is an act which is oppressive or capricious or arbitrary or negligent provided, loss, or injury is suffered by a citizen. In the instant case, having regard to the facts and circumstances, the State Commission was fully justified in recording a finding that on account of the petitioners’ action being capricious and oppressive has occasioned grave injustice to the respondent. The State Forum being statutorily obliged to award compensation, is justified in directing payment of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant. Writ petition is accordingly, rejected.