Failure To Pay Maturity Amount Under Monthly Income Scheme, CDRC New Delhi Holds India Post Liable
Pranav B Prem
In a significant ruling, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Central District, New Delhi, held India Post accountable for deficiency in service for failing to release the maturity amounts and interest accrued on Monthly Income Scheme (MIS) accounts. The bench comprising Inder Jeet Singh (President) and Ashwani Kumar Mehta (Member) ruled in favour of the complainant, Mahesh Kumar Chawla, directing India Post to compensate him for mental harassment, litigation expenses, and the unpaid maturity amounts.
Background of the Case
Mahesh Kumar Chawla, the complainant, had opened two Monthly Income Scheme (MIS) accounts with India Post. The maturity dates for these accounts were 20.08.2014 and 12.08.2014, respectively. While interest payments were received initially—up to 01.03.2011 for the first account and up to 23.06.2010 for the second—India Post subsequently failed to release any further interest or maturity amounts.
Also Read: No Service Tax On Sale Of Packed or Reheated Food In Cinema Halls: CESTAT
Despite several efforts made by the complainant, including submitting representations and three RTI applications, no resolution was offered. He even personally approached the Postmaster of the concerned Post Office, but the issue remained unresolved. Frustrated by this prolonged delay and lack of response, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Commission.
Contentions by India Post
India Post contended that the MIS passbooks submitted by the complainant were not valid. For the first account, they alleged that the account number had been altered in the passbook and that the opening date did not match their records. Additionally, India Post pointed out discrepancies in the name of the account holder. With respect to the second account, they argued that the system reflected a different individual as the account holder, and that interest payments had been stopped due to irregularities in the documentation.
India Post further submitted that the fraudulent actions were carried out by a Dealing Assistant who had already been suspended and charge-sheeted, and that appropriate departmental action was being pursued.
Commission’s Observations and Findings
The District Commission carefully scrutinized the evidence, including the original MIS passbooks submitted by the complainant. It noted that India Post had itself collected the original passbooks from the complainant under acknowledgement, but failed to return them or resolve the dispute in a timely manner.
The Commission rejected India Post’s allegations regarding overwriting and discrepancies in account numbers and maturity dates, pointing out that the passbooks were duly signed and stamped by the concerned postal officers and bore valid maturity dates.
It referred to the departmental enquiry and divisional-level investigation reports, both of which confirmed that the Dealing Assistant had issued multiple passbooks with the same account numbers to different individuals. These reports clearly established that the complainant had no role in the fraudulent practices and was a victim of misconduct by India Post’s staff.
Crucially, the Commission emphasized that India Post had not challenged these enquiry reports, nor had it provided any legal justification for its failure to act upon them. The Commission held that India Post’s continued inaction despite multiple requests and RTI applications by the complainant constituted a clear case of “unfair trade practice” and deficiency in service.
Relief Granted to the Complainant
Upon finding India Post liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices, the District Commission directed it to compensate the complainant accordingly. It ordered India Post to pay a sum of ₹49,500 for the first Monthly Income Scheme account and ₹30,000 for the second account, representing the unpaid maturity amounts. In addition, the Commission awarded ₹20,000 as compensation for the mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant due to the prolonged delay and non-responsiveness of India Post. Furthermore, an amount of ₹15,000 was granted towards litigation expenses incurred by the complainant in pursuing the complaint.
Cause Title: Mahesh Kumar Chawla V. The Post Matser, Post Office, Rajinder Nagar
Case No: Complaint Case No.258/2016
Coram: Shri Inder Jeet Singh [President], Shri Ashwani Kumar Mehta [Member/Link Officer]
[Read/Download order]
