Over the next decade, consumers will have to continue to fight for their rights. Like Chitrangad Wadgaonkar, now 78, did against the postal department. Anil Agashe narrates his story

In November 1998, Chitrangad Wadgaonkar made two deposits, as karta of his Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), amounting to Rs1,74,000 and Rs30,000 at the Navasahyadri post office in Pune. The deposits were made under the Post Office Monthly Income Scheme (POMIS), through an authorised agent.

Mr Wadgaonkar issued the payment cheques from his HUF bank account.
The post office issued two passbooks in the name of the karta of the HUF and interest was paid for six years, that is, until the maturity of the deposit. On maturity, Mr Wadgaonkar was to get back the principal along with a maturity bonus of 10% as per the terms of the Scheme. But he was told that the HUF category was not eligible for this Scheme; hence, the bonus would not be paid to him; also, all the interest paid till date would be adjusted against the principal and only the balance would be paid to him. Mr Wadgaonkar then progressively approached the entire hierarchy of the postal department to seek justice, as he was being punished for the fault of someone in the department who had originally accepted the deposits. He represented his case to the postmaster general, Maharashtra Circle, Mumbai.

Finally, he approached the department of economic affairs, ministry of finance. Mr Wadgaonkar was helped by Balasaheb Apte, member, Rajya Sabha, who wrote to the concerned minister and the department. However, nothing happened. He received two cheques from the post office for his principal amount after deducting all the interest paid to him. Mr Wadgaonkar then filed a complaint with the district consumer redressal forum, Pune, to get his dues. The forum passed an order in his favour on 24 April 2007. However, the postal department appealed against this order.

Meanwhile, Mr Wadgaonkar filed a petition under the RTI Act with the help of Ram Apte, an advocate, and Vivek Velankar of the Nagrik Chetana Manch, Pune. The petition, filed on 3 January 2008, sought information on his application to the postmaster general, Pune, asking him to ‘regularise’ his account. He received a reply that his application had been forwarded to the ministry of finance on 19 March 2007. After this, Mr Wadgaonkar filed another petition under the RTI Act to the information officer, department of economic affairs, ministry of finance, with copies of all his correspondence with the postal department along with his application dated 19 October 2005 seeking regularisation of his account.

As Mr Wadgaonkar did not receive a reply from the ministry within the timeframe stipulated under the RTI Act, he filed the first appeal with the concerned appellate authority. He then got a call from the postal department on 30 June 2009, saying that his account was being regularised. He also received a written communication to that effect. The held-back interest and 10% bonus were paid to him, but the department kept silent about the payment of interest for the period of delay. So, Mr Wadgaonkar filed another appeal with the appellate authority. On failing to receive a satisfactory reply, he filed an appeal with the chief information commissioner.

Meanwhile, he received an oral communication from the postal department that it had decided to pay him the interest on the delayed payment. But Mr Wadgaonkar was paid interest on delayed payment for only two years—and not for the four years which was the actual delay—on the pretext that the departmental rules allow payment only for two years, irrespective of the actual period of delay. What’s more, the budget division of the department of posts informed Mr Wadgaonkar that it had not received any application from him; this response was despite the fact that the letters had been sent by registered post and the acknowledgement receipts were in his possession. Finally, the department informed him that it would pay interest for the balance two years at the savings bank rate of interest (3.5%).

So, the matter ultimately came to an end after four years of hard work and a lot of stress for Mr Wadgaonkar. It was resolved only due to his perseverance and determination to get justice by using all possible legal means as well as the help that he received from the people mentioned above.

The moot question is: How many people who suffer at the hands of various government agencies have the will to fight like Mr Wadgaonkar? This will remain a recurring issue over the next decade as bureaucratic high-handedness remains pervasive and the justice system remains fragile.