DIRECTOR GENERAL, POST And TELEGRAPH vs MARKET COMMITTEE, GHARAUNDA

THE Director General, Post & Telegraph, New Delhi, has come up in appeal against the order dated 5.8.1994 passed by the learned District Forum, Karnal, whereby the complaint of the Market Committee, Gharaunda, District Karnal, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant in the matter of conversion of the National Saving Certificates and payment of interest, etc. has been allowed, by passing the following order: "THErefore, in our opinion, the complainant has a good case and the opposite party is liable to make the payment of the National Saving Certificates at least at the rate of the 7th Issue. THEy will also be liable to payment of the interest at the same rate on which the interest was payable on the NSCs till the date of realisation. THEy shall also pay Rs. 500/- as further damages to the claimant on account of loss of interest."

THE complainant-Market Committee approached the learned District Forum with the grievance that they had purchased from the Sub Post Master (LSG), Gharaunda, NSCs (Sixth Issue) of various denominations amounting to Rs. 3 lacs. Later on when it transpired that the NSCs of the Sixth Issue had been sold inadvertantly, whereas it should have been the Seventh Issue, the complainant approached the Postal Department but needful was not done. THEreupon, they claimed the maturity of the Seventh Issue with interest at the rate of 18% along with Rs. 50,000/- by way of damages. In reply, the Postal Department admitted that the Sixth Issue of the NSCs had been wrongly sold and the Certificates should have been got discharged. However, it is pleaded that it was the duty of the holder of the Certificates, i.e. the Market Committee, Gharaunda, to have the Certificates encashed as soon as the error came to their notice. Finally, it was pleaded that the complainant having not obtained the discharge of the Sixth Issue of the NSCs was not entitled to any payment. THE learned District Forum, however, allowed the complaint by issuing the aforesaid order. Against the aforesaid order, when the appeal was filed by the Postal Department, the following order was passed on 5.12.1994 by the Commission, as an interim order: "This case has been postponed till after the appointment of the President for consideration on the condonation application as it involves a delay in filing the appeal. The Counsel for the appellant states that proceedings under Section 27 of the Act have been initiated and if these are not stayed, irreparable loss is liable to be caused to the appellant. The appellant does not dispute their liability to pay the basic amount along with interest at the rate of Savings Bank Account. Therefore, the only dispute survives regarding interest to be paid on the amount which was deposited with the appellant. The appellant is directed to pay the basic amount of Rs. 3/00,000/- to the respondent within a period of two weeks. The amount of interest may be paid after the disposal of the appeal. The proceedings before the District Forum with regard to the interest part are stayed till the final disposal of this appeal."

This order has since been complied with and the principal amount has since been returned to the complainant-Market Committee. Regarding the claim of the Market Committee with regard to interest and damages, etc. the learned Counsel for the appellant has placed firm reliance on the judgment of Hon''ble the Supreme Court in Postmaster Dargamitta H.P.O. Hellora v. Ms. Raja Prameelamma, SLP (C) No. 38 of 1995 according to which an erroneous indication of higher rate of interest or higher maturity value did not amount to deficiency in service in terms of the Consumer Protection Act. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment of Hon''ble the Supreme Court reads as under: "It is evident from the definition of the term ''deficiency'' that it must be a fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained under a law or has been undertaken to be performed in pursuance of a contract. In fact of the notification issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, on 1.4.1987, i.e. prior to the date of issue of the certificates, the erroneous indication of a higher rate of interest and a higher maturity value cannot be deemed to be a deficiency in service with reference to the law governing the sale of National Savings Certificates. As regards the contract, no doubt the sale of National Savings Certificates with the terms and conditions embodied thereon constitutes a contract between the Government of India as seller and the holders of the National Savings Certificates. But as this contract was contrary to the terms notified by the Government of India and this was due to inadvertance of the staff. In my opinion it does not become a contract binding the Government of India being unlawful and void. As such, this is not a case of deficiency in service either in terms of the law or in terms of the contract as defined in Section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act."

In view of the binding precedent, which is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case, we allow the appeal filed by the Postal Department and set aside the order passed by the learned District Forum. Resultantly, the complainant-Market Committee shall not be entitled to receive and the appellants shall not be liable to pay interest on the maturity amount of the NSCs at the rates admissible on the Certificates of the Seventh Issue. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. Complaint disposed of.