HEAD POST MASTER vs RAJESH JAIN

IN this appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, order dated 26.7.2005 in Complaint No. 58/2005 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter called ''District Forum'' for short) has been challenged.

THE complainant/respondent herein admittedly had purchased 20 Indira Vikas Patra (IVP for short) each of Rs. 5,000 denominations. The details of the said IVPs have been given in para 1 of the complaint and reproduced in para 2 of the impugned order. The complainant averred that the said IVPs were stolen from his possession on 28.11.2003, while he was on tour to Delhi. He lodged report of the incident with the Police at Delhi, which had also registered an offence. By his letter dated 2003, the complainant also informed about the theft of the said IVPs to the Head Post Office of Rajnandgaon, from where the said certificates were purchased, with the request not to permit encashment of the said certificates. He also prayed that the amount payable under the said certificates be paid to him. However, since the Post -Office did not pay the amount payable under the said IVPs; failed to do so, therefore, he approached the District Forum and filed the complaint. 3. The complaint was resisted by appellants. It was submitted that no application for purchase of IVP is required to be submitted and that it was not necessary for the appellant Post Office to keep a record regarding the purchase of the IVPs. It was also averred that any person could purchase IVPs from the Post Office and that the encashment thereof is permitted on presentation thereof. There is no provision for replacement of the said certificates in case of theft etc. It was denied that there was any deficiency in service by the appellant in not paying the complainant the amount under the IVPs.

THE District Forum in the impugned order held that complainant had established that he had purchased the IVPs and that he had promptly intimated the theft of the said IVPs to the appellant. Accordingly, it was held that the appellants are liable to pay the maturity amount of the lost IVPs to the complainant/respondent with interest.

THE learned Counsel for the parties were heard and the record of the complaint as well as the impugned order perused. The learned Counsel for appellant Post Office produced before us relevant rules regarding IVPs as notified in Post Office Saving Bank Manual Vol. II. It was submitted that Clause 11 of the Manual, which relates to issue and encashment of IVP, specifically provides that the replacement of mutilated, or defaced IVP was to be done, only in case the same are not beyond recognition. It was submitted that encashment of IVPs could be made after the maturity period, by presentation before the Post Office of issue. On the basis of the said rules, it was submitted that since there was no question of replacement of lost IVPs and since they were not been presented for encashment, it was not possible to do so.

IT is true that the IVPs can be purchased without application form, and they do not bear any endorsement showing as to by whom they were purchased. As submitted by the learned Counsel for appellant no application for purchase of IVPs is required. However, it is clear that if a person duly establishes that he was the holder of particular IVPs and makes a claim therefor and that if no contest against his claim is raised, then the authorities after considering the genuineness of such claim, could make payment. However, the authorities making payment, for their own safety and in order to avoid any contesting claim arising in future in regard to such payment, may require the claimants to furnish a proper security etc. It is, therefore, clear that the complainants claim cannot be thrown out and rejected merely on the ground that the IVPs can be encashed only on its presentation and are in the footing of currency note. It may be reiterated that in case the complainant can satisfactorily establish the purchase of IVPs and genuineness of his claim, his prayer should be duly considered and accepted.

IN the above context, reference may be made to the decision of Kerala State Consumer Commission in Sub -Postmaster v. E.G. Sulochana, I (2004) CPJ 165, which was also a case of theft of IVPs. In the said decision, it has been held that IVP rules do not create hurdle, in the way of the complainant, from whose possession the IVPs have been stolen. It was pointed out in that case that Rule 11 of Indira Vikas Patra Rules provided for relaxation subject to satisfaction of the Central Government in case of hardship to the holder of a certificate. It was also observed that production of certificate at the time of encashment should not be treated as a mandatory pre -condition and that it is only the procedure to be followed in ordinary situation. Similar view also appears to have been taken by the Himachal Pradesh State Commission in Head Post -Office, Solan v. Pratap Singh, I (2004) CPJ 587. It was observed therein that the payment against the lost or misplaced IVPs could be made after verification of the genuineness of the claim.

AFTER considering the various circumstances of the case and the fact that the complainant had promptly and duly intimated loss of his IVPs to the Delhi Police as well as to the appellants giving particulars of the IVPs, shows that he had a genuine claim against them and that he was the owner thereof. It has also been admitted by the appellants that the said IVPs have not been encashed so far and that no claim, for payment of maturity amount, has been made so far. It is, therefore, clear that though IVPs had matured for payment in December 2003 yet even after a lapse of more than two years no contest has been raised by anybody claiming the ownership of said IVPs. The appellant, therefore, should have no hesitation in making payment thereof, subject of course to indemnity being furnished, in order to secure the interest of the appellants in case some contest in future is raised, in regard to the said IVPs.

IN view of the impugned order of the District Forum directing payment of maturity amount deserves to be affirmed. However, the District Forum has directed that indemnity bond be furnished by the complainant in regard to the payment against the said IVPs. As agreed to by the learned Counsel for the complainant/respondent, we consider it just and proper to direct that the amount shall be kept in Term Deposit for five years with the appellants, in the name of the complainant by opening a suitable account. It is clarified that in case some contest or claim is made and allowed in future in pursuance of order by a Competent Authority, in regard to the said IVPs, the amount paid thereunder, could be realized/adjusted from the amount so deposited by the complainant. With the modification as above, in the impugned order, the appeal stands dismissed.