M. THANIKACHALAM J. - (1.) The opposite parties before the lower forum in OP.No.89/2002, are the appellants.
(2.) The complainants/ respondents, opened an Public Provident Fund Account, in the head Post office at Thanjavur on 31.3.1998, jointly. In all, the complainants have deposited with the 1st respondent a sum of Rs.46,500/-, which earned interest also, totaling a sum of Rs.53,730/- as on 16.5.2002. On 12.6.2002, the 1st opposite party directed the complainants to close their PPF account, and to get back the deposited amount only, without interest. Under the law, the complainants are entitled to get back, not only the deposited amount, but also the interest. All of a sudden, the 1st opposite party sent a sum of Rs.46,500/- alone, through cheque dt29.10.2002, which wad received by the complainants, under protest. The non-payment of interest amounts to deficiency in service, which caused mental agony also to the parties, for which the respondents are entitled to pay a sum of Rs.50000/-, in addition to interest.
(3.) The claim as narrated above, was opposed by the appellant/ opposite parties, filing a detailed written version, stating that opening joint account in PPF account, is not permissible and this being the position, the account opened by the complainants were closed, amount refunded, which cannot be described as deficiency in service, that the complainants have not suffered any damage, and this being the factual position, the question of claiming compensation also does not arise, since the opening of the account itself is irregular under the rules, then question of granting interest either compound or simple, as the case may be, will not arise for consideration.;