HARI SINGH vs Union Of India And Anr.

THE Complainant had purchased 30 Indira Vikas Patras (hereafter referred to as IVPs) from Post Office, Nazibabad, Bijnore (UP) of Rs. 2500 denomination totalling Rs. 75,000 and the maturity value thereof was Rs. 1,50,000. The IVPs matured on 5.7.1998. The Petitioner sent a letter to Deputy Post Master, Post Office, Nazibabad, Distt. Bijnor, UP stating that he wanted payment of the IVPs from Post Office, Sultanpur. The Complainant, therefore, requested for verification of the IVPs. This letter was received by Deputy Post Master, Sultanpur Head Office on 7.7.1998. On 29.9.1998, the Petitioner lost IVPs while going from Charbag, Lucknow to his residence New Kanchanpuri Colony, Harijan Basti, Lucknow. FIR was lodged in respect of the same and the Opposite Party No. 4 was informed about it on 22.9.1998. The Police made arrest in connection with the loss of the said IVPs and recovered IVPs of the maturity value of Rs. 66,000. However, IVPs of which maturity value was Rs. 85,000 could not be recovered. The Complainant sought payment of the said IVPs, but the payment was not made. The Complainant alleging deficiency filed complaint before the District Forum seeking direction to pay maturity value of Rs. 85.000 with 18% interest thereon from 5.7.1998 till date of realisation. Besides this, the Complainant sought Rs. 10,000 for physical and mental harassment as also cost of litigation.

THE District Forum allowed the claim and directed the Opposite Party to pay maturity value of Rs. 85,000 and also to pay interest after the date of maturity as per Departmental Rules as well as cost of Rs. 2,000 as cost of litigation. This order was challenged by the Opposite Party before the State Commission.

THE State Commission after an elaborate discussion and analysis of the matter and taking into consideration Rules 7 to 11 of Indira Vikas Patra Rules, 1986 as also judgement of the Apex Court in Central Government of India and Others v. Krishnaji Parvetesh Kulkarni, III (2006) SLT 352=II (2006) CLT 118 (SC)=AIR 2006 SC 1744, allowed the appeal of the Opposite Party. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner urged before us that in the case under consideration the Complainant had sought verification of the IVPs and there was undue delay in the verification of IVPs on account of which there was deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. Reliance was placed by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner on the DG Posts Letter No. 103/904/17/96 -PG dated 25.8.1996 and DG Posts Letter No. 61 -20/96 -SB dated 21.11.1996. He, therefore, contends that in view of the above distinguishing feature of this case, judgment of the Apex Court upon which reliance has been placed by the State Commission cannot be applied to the facts and circumstances of the matter under consideration. He, therefore, contends that the State Commission erred in rejecting the claim of the Petitioner.

THE IVPs were lost and Rules 7(2) of the Indira Vikas Patra Rules, 1986 provides that a certificate lost, stolen, mutilated, defaced or destroyed beyond recognition, will not be replaced by any Post Office. Rule 10 of the said Rules exonerates the Post Office from the responsibility for any loss being caused to a holder by any person obtaining possession of a certificate and fraudulently encashing it. The Apex Court in Central Government of India and Others v. Krishnaji Parvetesh Kulkarni after dealing with Rule 7(2) of the said Rules and Rules 8 to 9 has observed as under: 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.

IN the case before the Apex Court, Indira Vikas Patras were lost and the holders of IVPs had sought payment of the lost IVPs. The Apex Court did not sustain the impugned directions and held that the original holder of the IVPs was not entitled to payment of maturity value of the lost IVPs. However, since in the said cases, payments had been made and it was submitted on behalf of Central Government that the amount being small they would not claim refund, the refund was not ordered in the peculiar circumstances of the case. However, the position of law was set at right and the principle laid down by the Apex Court is that holder of IVPs is not entitled to payment of maturity value of IVPs in case the same are lost. The fact that the Complainant had applied for verification would not make any difference and the letters upon which reliance has been placed are mere guidelines and internal administrative instructions in relation to curtailment of delay in verification and the same does not create any substantive right in favour of the holder of IVPs. The State Commission has also referred to Rule 11 of the said Rules which provides for relaxation of IVPs Rules on certain contingencies. The Complainant would be at liberty to represent to the Government for relaxation under Rules 11 of IVPs Rules and if any such application is filed, it goes without saying that the Central Government will consider the same in accordance with Rule 11 of the IVPs Rules.

IN view of the above, we do not find any deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party so as to interfere with the well considered judgment of the State Commission which does not claim for any interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The revision is accordingly summarily rejected with no order as to costs.