ASHWANI KUMAR JAIRATH vs DEPARTMENT OF POSTS CITY POST OFFICE, LUDHIANA

-THIS is an appeal by the complainant whose complaint has been dismissed by the District Forum vide the impugned order dated 27.7.2006.

BRIEF facts are that the complainant purchased Indira Vikas Patras (in short "IVPs") worth Rs. 80,000 from City Post Office, Bhadaur House, Ludhiana on 15.11.1997. The serial No. was 63C199815 to 199830 each for Rs. 2,500 totalling Rs. 40,000 and serial No. 63C187186 to 187200 each for Rs. 2,500 totalling Rs. 37,500 and serial No. 026220 to 026224 each for Rs. 500 totalling Rs. 2,500. The maturity date of these IVPs was 15.5.2003. The IVPs were allegedly stolen from the premises of the complainant on 18.11.1997 just a few days after the purchase. The IVPs could not be traced despite best efforts. An FIR was lodged to that effect on 24.11.1997 with Police Station Division No. 3, Ludhiana. Notices regarding the stolen IVPs were also given in the leading newspapers. An application was given to the OPs on 5.2.1998 regarding the factum of the stolen IVPs so that they could make a mention in their records. It is alleged that the post office officials told the complainant to wait till 15.5.2003 i.e. the date of maturity. After the maturity, the complainant went for collecting the amount of Rs. 1,60,000 which was the maturity value of the IVPs which had allegedly been stolen. It was alleged that nobody had come to claim any amount after the maturity regarding those IVPs. However, despite the aforesaid facts, the maturity value was not released to the complainant which led him to file the complaint which has been dismissed. Hence the present appeal. The matter need not detain us inasmuch as the Apex Court in Central Government of India & Ors. v. Krishnaji Parvetesh Kulkarni, III (2006) SLT 352=II (2006) CLT 118 (SC)=2006 (2) RCR (Civil) 610, has answered the question in the negative i.e. that in case of lost IVPs the payment cannot be released. In paragraphs 11 to 13 of the reported judgment it was observed as under: "11. An IVP is akin to an ordinary currency note. It bears no name of the holder. Just as a lost currency note cannot be replaced, similarly the question of replacing a lost IVP does not arise. Rule 7(2) makes the position clear that a certificate lost, stolen, mutilated, defaced or destroyed beyond recognition will not be replaced by any post office. Similar is the position as regards the certificate which is either lost or stolen. Undisputedly there was no challenge to the legality of the Rule 7(2). In the absence of a challenge to the provision, any direction should not really have been given. It is fundamental that no direction which is contrary to law can be given.

Therefore, the impugned order in each appeal cannot be sustained. It is, however, evident from the record in Civil Appeal No. 4819 of 2000 the respondent has been paid the amount pursuant to the direction given in the suit as affirmed by the High Court. In the peculiar circumstances, the respondent shall not be liable to refund the amount in the peculiar circumstances of the case. So far as other appeal is concerned, if the appellants have not made the payment, they shall not be liable to make payment. But if the payment has already been made as in the case of Civil Appeal No. 4819 of 2000 then no recovery shall be made.

This direction is being given in view of the statement made by learned Counsel for the appellants that considering the small amount involved the appellant will not claim refund, but the position in law has to be set at rest as large number of such claims are being made."

Learned Counsel for the appellant, however, argued that before the Apex Court the case was regarding the replacement of the lost IVPs. This replacement of the lost IVPs is prohibited by Rule 7(2) of the Indira Vikas Patra Rules, 1986. However, he stated that present case is not of replacement but is of payment of the matured value of the lost certificates which admittedly had not been encashed after the maturity.

WE do not agree with the submission of the learned Counsel. After all, a duplicate certificate is only asked for to ultimately get the matured value on the basis of the duplicate certificate. If duplicate certificate cannot be issued surely no payment can be made qua the certificates which have been lost. As observed by the Apex Court an IVP is akin to an ordinary currency note. The holder of the certificate is deemed to be the owner of the certificate. In case, the Post Office had given money regarding the lost certificates to the complainant and later on some person come with the certificates in original could the Post Office refuse payment to the person who is presenting the original certificates? To us the answer has to be in negative. The Post Office cannot refuse payment to the holder of the certificates and even cannot ask a question from where did he get those certificates. Even a holder of a certificate can give that certificate to another person on consideration like a currency note. The District Forum relied upon the aforesaid authority of the Apex Court to non-suit the complainant. We agree with the District Forum.

REFERENCE may also be made to First Appeal No. 421 of 2006, "The Secretary to the Government of India, P & T Department, Central Secretariat, New Delhi and Others v. Inder Singh, decided by this Commission on 20.7.2006. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum. This appeal is, thus, dismissed in limine. Appeal dismissed.