2007 (12) TMI 539 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement for refund of the entire amount of Rs. 2,03,000/- towards 7 M.I.S. Accounts.
2. Entitlement for interest on such amount and damages of Rs. 25,000/- towards mental agony.
3. Proof of unauthorized withdrawal from M.I.S. accounts.
4. Deficiency in service by the opposite party.
5. Maintainability of the complaint.

Summary:

Issue 1: Entitlement for refund of the entire amount of Rs. 2,03,000/- towards 7 M.I.S. Accounts
The District Forum held that the complainant was not entitled to the refund of Rs. 2,03,000/- as the amounts were withdrawn by her son, V.C. Nagaraj, using duly signed withdrawal forms. However, the State Commission overturned this decision, stating that the premature closure of the M.I.S. Accounts was not in accordance with the provisions regulating payment under the Monthly Income Scheme Account (MISA). The State Commission directed the payment of Rs. 2,03,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the respective dates of maturity.

Issue 2: Entitlement for interest on such amount and damages of Rs. 25,000/- towards mental agony
The District Forum awarded damages of Rs. 20,000/- for deficiency of service but rejected the claim for Rs. 2,03,000/-. The State Commission, however, awarded Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- as costs, recognizing the capricious and oppressive actions of the petitioners.

Issue 3: Proof of unauthorized withdrawal from M.I.S. accounts
The District Forum found that the complainant had not proved unauthorized withdrawal from her M.I.S. accounts. However, the State Commission noted that the complainant had not made an application for premature closure of the accounts, and the use of withdrawal forms (SB-7) for premature closure was not justified. The petitioners failed to establish a practice or procedure for accepting SB-7 forms for premature closure.

Issue 4: Deficiency in service by the opposite party
The State Commission concluded that the petitioners' actions amounted to a deficiency in service. The premature closure of the M.I.S. accounts and payment in cash were contrary to the rules and scheme. The petitioners acted without proper authorization and contrary to the instructions, leading to a finding of legal deficiency.

Issue 5: Maintainability of the complaint
The District Forum's decision on the maintainability of the complaint was not explicitly discussed in the judgment. However, the State Commission proceeded to address the merits of the case, implying that the complaint was maintainable.

Conclusion:
The High Court upheld the State Commission's findings, rejecting the writ petition. The actions of the petitioners were deemed capricious and oppressive, justifying the award of compensation and costs to the complainant. The judgment emphasized the wide reach of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and the liability of statutory authorities for misfeasance in public office.