DIRECTOR, POST And TELEGRAPH vs L.S.SRIVASTAVA

THIS appeal is preferred under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act against an order/award passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum on 17.6.95 in Civil Misc. Case No. 4 of 95.

FACT of the case, in short, is that the respondent before us purchased 4 National Sevings Certificates of 6 years'' duration, each amounting to Rs. 5,000/-. The purchases were made on 26-2-88 and 14-6-88 from the Head Post Office, Gangtok. It was under Scheme No. VI. Each of the certificates of Rs. 5,000/- indicated maturity value of Rs. 10,075/- on expiry of 6 years. But while producing the certificates for payment on expiry of the date of maturity, the respondent was given @ Rs. 9,505/- per certificate. Hence, the respondent filed the above noted Civil Misc. Case No. 4 of 95 before the District Redressal Forum. The contention of the appellants before the District Forum was that the maturity value was actually Rs. 10,075/- for each certificate of Rs. 5,000/- under Scheme No. VI while the Scheme or Issue was initially started in 1981 but some changes were made in the rate of interest w.e.f. 1.4.87 and the maturity value was reduced to Rs. 190.10 for each certificate of Rs. 100/-. Since the respondent made the purchase in 1988, he became disentitled to the initial rate of return and he was to get it at the revised rate of Rs. 9,505/- for each certificate of denomination of Rs. 5,000/- It has further been contended by the appellants before us that while applying for purchase of the Savings Certificates (VI) Issue, the respondent agreed to bind himself with the provisions of National Savings Certificates (VI) Issue Rules/1981 and amendment thereto. But the certificates which were granted to the subscriber were of 1981 origin and it showed maturity value as Rs. 10,075/- in place of Rs. 9,505/-. It is the contention of the appellants that it was purely a clerical mistake and the issuing clerk just missed to amend the maturity value in the certificates.

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum accepted the contention of the respondent (petitioner before the Forum) and placed all stress on the face value of the certificates issued by the postal authorities where they promised to pay Rs. 10,075/- as maturity value for each of the certificates. The District Forum placed reliance on the decision of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Bimla Devi Gupta''s case as was reported in 1995 (1) CPR 137 and passed order in favour of the petitioner (respondent in this appeal). Being aggrieved by the aforesaid decision/ the opposite parties before the District Forum have preferred this appeal.

WHEN the appeal was called on for hearing, none appeared for the respondent though notice was duly served on him. We, therefore, come to the decision ex-parte on hearing the appellants only. There is no denial of the fact that the certificates relate to VI Issue where the maturity value for a certificate of Rs. 5,000/- was Rs. 10,075/- as on the initial stage of the Issue in 1981. There is also no denial of the fact that the National Savings Certificate (Issue VI) Rule of 1981 was changed substantially with effect from 1.4.87 so far as it related to the maturity value of each of the certificates. Under the amended Rule of 1987, the maturity value was reduced to Rs. 9,505/- for each certificate of Rs. 5,000/-. It is also the admitted position that the respondent applied for issuance of such certificates on 26.2.88 and 14.6.88 in prescribed Performa (Clause No. 2) where the respondent agreed to abide by the National Savings Certificate (VI Issue) Rules, 1981 and amendment thereto. The only flaw on the part of the appellants was that no changes were made with respect to the maturity value in the certificates.

THE point is whether the respondent can get any benefit out of the mistakes committed by the servants of the appellants in not making any correction in the certificates and whether promise made in the certificates to make payment @ Rs. 10,075/- would have binding effects on the appellants in spite of the amendment in 1987 so far as it related to the maturity value of the certificates. In the decision as has already been referred to and on which the District Forum placed all reliance, the State Commission of Delhi Held that when certain condition is printed on any Savings Certificate without putting any seal containing the changed condition or without writing the new condition by hand, the purchasers should be given the benefit of the condition as noted in the certificate itself. Unfortunately, we cannot agree with the views taken by the Delhi Commission. Even if we take the certificates on their face value, we must hold that the certificates symbolising a contract contrary to the terms notified by the Government of India on account of inadvertence of the concerned staff loose the binding effect of the contract. The aforesaid view was taken by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in a just indentical case in SLP (C) No. 35 of 95 (Post Master of Dargamitta H.P.O. v. Raja Prameelamma) where the Hon''ble Court revised the majority decision of the National Commission.

WE, therefore, find adequate grounds to interfere with the decision of the District Forum and, therefore, we allow the appeal. Set aside the order dated 17.6.95 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. East at Gangtok in Civil Misc. Case No. 4 of 95. WE make no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.