Failure To Pay Maturity Amount Under Monthly Income Scheme, Central Delhi District Commission Holds India Post Liable

Brief Facts:

Mahesh Kumar Chawla (“Complainant”) availed two 'Monthly Income Scheme (MIS)' accounts with India Post with maturity dates of 20.08.2014 and 12.08.2014, respectively. The Complainant received interest payments up to 01.03.2011 for the first account and up to 23.06.2010 for the second account. However, after these dates, India Post failed to release the interest and maturity amount accrued from these accounts. Despite submitting a letter and three RTI applications, India Post failed to provide a satisfactory response or justification for withholding the payments. The Complainant personally approached the Postmaster, but the maturity amounts of the MIS accounts were not released. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Central Delhi (“District Commission”).

Regarding the first account, India Post argued that the account number was altered in the passbook, and the opening date was misrepresented. It argued that there was a discrepancy in the name of the account holder. Concerning the second account, India Post argued that while the Complainant claimed it was opened jointly with other holders, its system reflected a different account holder. It argued that interest was paid up to 23.06.2010 but was subsequently stopped due to discrepancies.

Observations by the District Commission:

The District Commission noted that the original passbooks of both accounts were collected by India Post from the Complainant, with proper acknowledgements issued by the recipient officers. It noted that India Post raised objections regarding overwriting in the account number and discrepancies in dates, but these objections lacked merit. It held that the passbooks indicated the maturity dates and bore the seal and signature of the Postmaster.

The District Commission also referred to an enquiry report which recorded the statement of the Dealing Assistant who was subsequently suspended and charge-sheeted. The divisional-level investigation report also noted that the Dealing Assistant fraudulently issued multiple passbooks with the same account numbers to different depositors while manipulating interest payment entries.

The District Commission noted that India Post did not challenge these enquiry reports, which recommended settling the dispute based on the original passbook entries. Despite collecting the passbooks from the Complainant, India Post failed to resolve the matter promptly. The District Commission also observed that the fraudulent activities were solely attributed to India Post's employee, with no involvement or fault on the part of the Complainant. Therefore, it held that non-payment of interest and maturity amounts, despite repeated requests and RTI applications, constituted unfair trade practice on the part of India Post.

Consequently, the District Commission directed India Post to pay Rs. 49,500/- for the first account and Rs. 30,000/- for the second account. India Post was also directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- for mental agony and harassment along with litigation costs of Rs. 15,000/-.

Case Title: Mahesh Kumar Chawla vs The Post Master, Post Office, Rajinder Nagar

Case Number: Complaint Case No. 258/2016

Click Here To Read/Download The Order