General Post Office Sadar Bazar Gurgaon vs Bahri Bai

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 29.10.2001 passed by District Forum, Gurgaon whereby while accepting the complaint filed by the respondent -complainant, directions had been given to the appellant -opposite party to pay maturity value of the Indira Vikas Patras (hereinafter referred to as the IVPs) to the complainant within a month from the date of the order after obtaining the Indemnity Bonds from her or any other undertaking which the department may deem fit.

KRISHAN Kumar (since deceased) had purchased IVPs bearing serial No. 41 -C 231542 to 231561 dated 31.10.1995 for Rs. 2,500 each worth Rs. 50,000 from the General Post Office, Gurgaon, opposite party. The said Krishan Kumar lost the above mentioned IVPs on 14.9.1996 near Bus stand, Gurgaon. After he failed to trace out the same, the matter was reported to the S.H.O., Police Station, Gurgaon who recorded a Rapat bearing No. 9 dated 19.9.1996 in the Rapat Roznamcha of Police Station, Gurgaon. On the same day, the said Krishan Kumar informed the Superintendent, Head Post Office, Gurgaon vide his application dated 19.9.1996 containing his request not to make payment of above mentioned IVPs to any body else. On 16.11.1998 Krishan Kumar died. Thereafter the complainant Bahri Bai being the mother of the deceased approached the appellant to make the payment of the aforesaid IVPs to her being the sole beneficiary under the law on furnishing of necessary indemnity bond. When no action was taken by the appellant, she filed the present complaint. In defence, the appellant took up the stand that as per condition of the scheme IVPs are to be treated as cash for the purposes of stocking and safe custody and in the event of their loss, stolen or destroyed, they could not be replaced by the Post Office. It was also stated that under the scheme any body can purchase this IVP and name of the purchaser is not required to be maintained. At the same time, it was admitted that IVPs bearing No. 41 -C -231701 to 231800 for denomination of Rs. 2,500 each were issued from Gurgaon Head Post Office with the maturity date 1.5.2001 with the payment of double of the purchase value on maturity. At the same time, it was stated that on 15.6.2001 the IVPs detailed below were presented for encashment at the counter of Head Post Office, Gurgaon and were paid to the persons, who had claimed the same: Sr. No. No of IVPs Den. Name of Parties 1. 41 -C 231707 to (4) 2500/5000 Aman Trehan E -26 Panchsheel 231710 Park New Delhi -17. 2. 41 -C 231705 to (6) 2500/5000 Deepak Srivastva 33A Shiv 231706 &41 -C 231786 Partap Nagar, Ambala Cantt. to231789 3. 41C -231771 and 776 (2) 2500/5000 Kajal Financial Consultant P. Ltd. AK -11 Ara Kanshan Road Ram Nagar, Pahar ganj New Delhi, New Hotel Chand Palace.

During the trial of the complaint the Counsel representing the complainant made a statement before the District Forum that she may be permitted to withdraw the complaint in respect of the above stated IVPs which had been claimed by other persons. It is further case of the opposite party that the above mentioned IVPs were mentioned to be lost as per FIR lodged with the police but the police has not fixed identification of the person involved during the investigation of this case. Under these circumstances, they denied the entitlement of the complainant to claim amount of the unpaid aforesaid IVPs.

THE District Forum on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record, came to the conclusion that the complainant is entitled to receive the maturity value of the IVPs other than those, which have been encashed noticed earlier. Accordingly, the appellant was directed to pay maturity value of the IVPs on furnishing Indemnity Bond or any other undertaking which the department may deem fit to do so. It is against this order, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant -opposite party.

WE have heard the learned Counsel representing the parties at length. Challenge to the impugned order has been made by the learned Counsel representing the appellant on three counts. Firstly, that the District Forum did not take into consideration the departmental rules governing the payment of the IVPs and the decision rendered is rather in derogation of the rules; secondly, that the dispute raised by the complainant could not be decided in a summary manner and could only be decided by the Civil Court; thirdly, that the District Forum could not have directed to make payment of the lost IVPs on furnishing Indemnity Bond which re -course is not permissible under the rules. These submissions have been countered and refuted from the side of the respondent while justifying the impugned order.

IN exercise of powers conferred by Section 12 of the Government Savings Certificates Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1959) the Central Government had made Rules called Indira Vikas Patras Rules, 1986 which have come into force on 19th November, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Definition clause of Section 2(iii) define certificate as Indira Vikas Patra. These certificates could be issued in denominations of Rs. 500 and Rs. 1,000 as laid down in the rules. The certificate of denomination of Rs. 500 or Rs. 1,000 could be purchased for Rs. 250 and Rs. 500 respectively. The procedure for purchase of the certificates has been prescribed in Rule 5 of the Rules. The material rules governing controversy are contained in Rules 7 to 11 which are as follows: 7. Replacement of certificate -(1) If a certificate is mutilated or defaced, the bearer is entitled for replacement from the post office of issue on payment of fee of rupee one. (2) A certificate lost, stolen, mutilated, defaced or destroyed beyond recognition, will not be replaced by any post office. 8. Encashment of certificate -A certificate of any denomination may be encashed at any time after the expiry of a period of five years from the date of issue by presenting it before the Post Office of issue: Provided that a certificate may be encashed at any other post if the officer -in -charge of that post office is satisfied on verification from the post office of issue that such certificate was issued by the said post office.

Discharge of certificate -The person presenting a certificate for encashment shall sign in the space provided on the back thereof in token of having received the payment and indicate thereon his name and address.

Responsibility of the Post Office -The Post Office shall not be responsible for any loss caused to a holder by any person obtaining possession of a certificate and fraudulently encashing it.

Power to relax -Where the Central Government is satisfied that the operation of any of the provisions in these rules causes undue hardship to the holder of a certificate, it may, by order, for reasons to be recorded in writing, relax the requirements of that provision in a manner not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act.

FROM the above stated rules it is clearly spelt out that the replacement of the certificates can be done in a situation where they are mutilated or defaced. At the same time, it has been expressly provided in these rules that a certificate lost, stolen, mutilated, defaced or destroyed beyond recognition will not be replaced by the Post Office, though Rule 8 provides for the encashment of certificate after the expiry of a period of five years from the date of issue by presenting it before the Post Office of its issue. But, these rules do not provide any procedure that in case certificate is lost, stolen, mutilated, defaced or destroyed beyond recognition can be paid on furnishing of an Indemnity Bond or any other undertaking. Rule 7(2) even clearly states that they cannot be replaced by the Post Office in the event of being lost or mutilated. That being so, unless and until the certificates are presented for encashment after maturity, Post Office concerned is not duty -bound to make the payment of the certificates. The main feature of the certificate is that identity of the purchaser is not indicated either in the certificates or at the time of its purchase from the Post Office. It is for that reason these certificates have been treated equal to cash because on presentation after maturity without asking any identification of the person presenting the same, payment can be made under the rules. Coming to the facts of the case, Krishan Kumar in his life -time had lodged report of these certificates having been lost or furnished an affidavit to the Police Station at the time of D.D.R. was recorded. The learned Counsel representing the respondent -complainant placed reliance on the observations made in the case of Dr. S.S. Kabotra v. Chief Post Master General, Haryana, 1997 (1) RCR (Civil) 272, wherein it has been held that Rule 8 of the Indira Vikas Patras Rules, 1986 provide that a certificate may be encashed at any other Post Office if Officer -in -charge of the Post Office is satisfied on verification from the Post Office of issue that such certificate was issued by the said Post Office. Information furnished by any issuing Post Office that relevant IVPs have not been encashed by any other person and the amount remained with the Post Office which had issued certificate, the respondents were directed to pay the amount due to these two IVPs after obtaining bond from the petitioner. In the light of the recourse adopted in the above mentioned case it was submitted that the District Forum was justified in ordering the payment of the certificates on furnishing of Indemnity Bond.

IN this regard, notice is also required to be taken to the observations made in case Sub -Post Master v. E.G. Sulochana, I (2004) CPJ 165, wherein it was observed in paras 11, 12, and 13 of the judgment as under: ''11. Learned Counsel for the respondent relying on Rule 11 (that rule confers ''power to relax'') contended that in a fit case Central Government is empowered to relax the requirements of Rules 7 and 8. Before proceeding further Rule 11 is to be extracted here - When the Central Government is satisfied that operation of any of the provisions in these rules causes undue hardship to the holder of a certificate, it may, by order that reasons to be recorded in writing, relax the requirements of that provision in a manner not inconsistent with the provision of the Act. Learned Counsel for the respondent rightly argued that immediately on receipt of letter intimating loss of certificate the opposite parties who are well aware of Rule 11 should have brought to the notice of Central Government the hardship of the complainant or should have informed the complainant about the remedy available instead of rejecting the claim outright insisting for performance of an impossible condition like production of certificates which were stolen. Criticising such an attitude by a public body, Honble National Commission observed in Ram Nath Mathurai v. Union of India, III (2002) CPJ 22 (NC), to tell him nothing can be done in rendering no service by a public body in this case, the Government. In that case National Commission considered the question whether refusal to refund the amount covered by Indira Vikas Patra on the ground of loss of receipt (Not IVP) was justified or not. Counsel argued with much force that nowhere it is provided in Rule 11 that only on production of the certificate, the encashment could be allowed. Rule 11 providing for relaxation, subject to the satisfaction of the Central Government in case of hardship of the holder of a certificate embolden us to take a view that production of certificate at the time of encashment may not be mandatory and it is only the procedure to be followed in ordinary situations. (We are not finally deciding the question as to whether Rule 8 is mandatory or not and we are aware that Central Government is conferred with power to relax the requirements of provisions in a manner not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act.) 12. Indira Vikas Patra Rules 7 and 8 are promulgated mainly to prevent fraudulent encashment of lost certificate and these rules do not create a hurdle in the way of appellants. We may also point out here that the agent appearing for appellants submitted before us that the appellants are ready to pay the maturity value of stolen Indira Vikas Patras provided indemnity bond is executed by the respondent. 13. To prevent fraudulent encashment of the Indira Vikas Patras direction given by the Forum below to make payment without imposing any condition is to be interfered with. Appellants/opposite parties are, therefore, directed to make payment of the maturity value of the 4 IVPs to the complainant/respondent on executing an Indemnity Bond for the sum of Rs. 20,000 (Rs. twenty thousand) to indemnify any other person who might be found lawful owner of the Indira Vikas Patras in question.''

THE ratio of the above mentioned cases is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. The District Forum while accepting the complaint has already directed that the maturity value of the IVPs to be paid to the complainant on her furnishing Indemnity Bonds or any other undertaking which the department may deem fit. This order shall prevent fraudulent encashment of the IVPs. Under the circumstances of the case, we find no illegality in the impugned order and uphold the same. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.