GANPAT NARAIN SACHAN vs CHIEF POST MASTER, G.P.O.

THIS appeal has been filed by Sri Ganpat Narain Sachan, r/o Balda Road Colony, Lucknow against the judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum-II, Lucknow in Complaint Case No. 138/1998. Briefly stated the facts of the case as alleged by the complainant are as follows.

THE complainant purchased 12 Indira Vikas Patras of the value of Rs. 2,500/- each from the Post Master, Kutchery Post Office, Moradabad on 3.6.1991. THEse Indira Vikas Patras were payable at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- each totalling to Rs. 60,000/- on or after 3.6.1996 after completion of five years. After due date the complainant presented them before the opposite party No. 1, Chief Post Master, Lucknow for encashment but the concerned Section Incharge informed the complainant that these Vikas Patras have to be transferred to Lucknow first and then only they could be encashed. Accordingly the complainant on 10.6.1996 made an application before the opposite party No. 1 for transferring the documents to Lucknow. When the Indira Vikas Patras were not transferred then again he made an application with the opposite party on 14.12.1996 and again on 24.6.1997. Inspite of these, the Indira Vikas Patras (hereinafter called the IVPs), were not transferred by the opposite party No. 2, Moradabad Post Office to the opposite party No. 1, the Chief Post Master General, Lucknow. The complainant then contacted Sub-Post Master, New Hyderabad, Lucknow who informed the complainant that an application has to be made for the transfer and the same has to be sent by registered post to opposite party No. 2. Accordingly the complainant through the New Hyderabad Post Office sent a registered letter on 30.12.1997 for transfer of IVPs to opposite party No. 2, Main Post Office, Lucknow. A reminder was sent on 29.1.1998. The payment of Rs. 60,000/- by crossed cheque was made to the complainant only on 3.2.1998.

The IVPs were purchased on 3.6.1991 and the amount of Rs. 60,000/- was due to be paid on 3.6.1996. The opposite parties kept the payment of the IVPs illegally from 3.6.1996 to 3.2.1998 and hence interest at the rate of 15% per annum on Rs. 60,000/- is payable to the complainant by the opposite parties for this period. A claim was, therefore, lodged before the District Consumer Forum, Lucknow for a sum of Rs. 16,400/- alongwith cost.

THE case of the opposite party before the learned District Forum-II, Lucknow was that the complainant had not applied for transfer/verification of IVPs through the Chief Post Master, Lucknow and, therefore, there is no question of any delay on the part of the opposite party. After hearing both the parties, the learned District Forum came to the conclusion that the payment of IVPs was made within 35 days of the application made by the complainant and, therefore, there has been no substantial delay. The complaint was, therefore, dismissed.

AGGRIEVED of this order of the learned District Forum, the complainant has come in appeal. In the memo of appeal, the grounds advanced before the learned District Forum had been reiterated. It has also been stated that the learned District Forum committed an error of law by not pursuing the order of the National Commission dated 16.12.1994 passed in I (1995) CPJ 149 (NC)=Appeal No. 344/1993 - Lucknow Development Authority v. Manorama Sachan, a copy of which was filed before the Forum. The order of the National Commission is in respect of the allotment of a plot where the payment was retained by Lucknow Development Authority for a number of years and the complainant was allowed 15% interest on the deposited amount. We have heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the two parties. Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that inspite of a number of applications made by him to the opposite party No. 1, the IVPs were not transferred from Moradabad Post office to Lucknow Chief Post Master''s Office and the amount contained in the IVPs was unlawfully retained by the opposite parties. Therefore, he is entitled to the interest on the amount retained for the period the IVPs were in possession of opposite party No. 2 after their maturity. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent has argued that there is no provision for paying interest on the IVPs after maturity period. IVP is like a currency note and, therefore, there is no question of paying interest after the maturity period. In this particular case the payment was made within 35 days when the IVPs were applied for being transferred from Moradabad Post Office to Lucknow. The payment was made immediately on presentation of the IVPs before the GPO. A delay of 35 days is, therefore, natural as the IVPs were purchased in Moradabad and were got transferred to Lucknow where payment was made immediately.

WE have also gone through the evidence on record. The complainant''s case is that he has made a number of applications before the Chief Post Master, Lucknow but no proof of this has been filed by the complainant. The only proof that is available is of New Hyderabad Post Office and within 35 days of his approaching the New Hyderabad Post Office, the payment was made after the IVPs were transferred from Moradabad Post Office to Lucknow. The case of Lucknow Development Authority v. Manorama Sachan, (supra), is not applicable in this case as in that case the Lucknow Development Authority had obtained an amount from the complainant for allotment of a plot and because of some litigation the plot could not be given in time and an alternative plot had to be given. In this case the delay which has been substantiated by evidence on record is that of 35 days which is quite natural because correspondence was made from Lucknow to Moradabad and then only the IVPs were transferred and on its transfer the payment was made immediately. The plea of the complainant that he has been applying to GPO, the opposite party, for transfer of the IVPs has not been proved as no document has been filed. The mere assertion in affidavit will not prove the case of the complainant. If he could file the documentary evidence of the New Hyderabad Post Office, then he could have also filed the evidence of his approaching the Chief Post Master''s office. In the circumstances the case of the complainant has not been proved and the judgment and order of the learned District Forum-II, Lucknow is perfectly right and does not need any interference. The appeal is liable to be dismissed. Order The appeal is dismissed and the judgment and order of the learned District Forum-II, Lucknow in Complaint Case No. 138/1998 are confirmed. No order as to the cost. Let copy as per rules be made available to the parties. Appeal dismissed.