AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Shishu Shiksha Sadan Junior High School, Laksar purchased National Saving Certificates for Rs.12,000/- on 28.11.1997, in the name of the respondent/complainant Smt. Lalita Aggarwal, who was the Manager of the school at the relevant time. The said certificates were then pledged with Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Haridwar. The certificates matured in the year 2003. On maturity of the certificates, the respondent/complainant applied to the concerned Post Office for payment of the maturity amount. She was asked to bring NOC from Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Haridwar with whom the certificates had been pledged. Vide letter dated 20.01.2004, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Haridwar asked the concerned Sub-Post Master to make payment of the said certificates. However, the payment was refused on the ground that purchase of the certificates by an institution was not permitted under the rules. Being aggrieved, the complainant/respondent approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint.
The complaint was resisted by the petitioner primarily on the ground that the National Saving Certificates could be issued only to individuals, HUFs and Trusts.
The District Forum vide its order dated 13.12.2006, directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.24,180/-, that being the maturity amount of the certificates to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 28.11.2003 and the cost of litigation quantified at Rs.1,000/-.
Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal also having been dismissed, the petitioner is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.
A similar issue came up for consideration of this Commission in OP No. 226 of 2006 decided on 03.08.2016. In the aforesaid case, the Zilla Parishad Bhandara had purchased Kisan Vikas Patras in the name of its Deputy CEO. On maturity of the Kisan Vikas Patras, the OP took the stand that the complainant was not entitled to make investment in such instruments. The principal amount was however, refunded to the complainant though after a considerable period. Directing the OP to pay compensation in the form of simple interest @ 12% per annum on the principal amount invested by it, from the date of maturity, this Commission inter-alia observed and held as under:
In my view, considering the mandate of the amended rule, the investment in Kisan Vikas Patras could have been made only by individuals or by a trust. The investment by a fund unless the said fund belonged to a trust, could not have been made once the rules were amended. Therefore, it would be difficult to accept the contention that investment in the name of District Village Development Fund, by a Zilla Parishad was permitted under the rules.
The next question which arises for consideration is as to whether the complainant is entitled to any compensation by way of interest on account of the fact that despite the mandate of the rule, the respondents accepted the deposit from the complainant in Kisan Vikas Patras, in contravention of Rule 6 of the Kisan Vikas Patra Rules. As observed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in M/s. Bhagwati Vanaspati Traders Vs. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Meerut Civil Appeal No. 4854 of 2009 decided on 10.10.2014, this is a case where two people, with the same source of information, asserted the same truth or agree to assert the same falsehood at the same time and therefore, neither can be estopped against the other. Hence, while the Post Office authorities were required to ensure that the Kisan Vikas Patras were issued only to the eligible persons and entity, the complainant who is supposed to know the law of the land including the Kisan Vikas Patras also ought to have refrained from making investment in Kisan Vikas Patras.
A similar issue came up for consideration of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Arulmighu Dhandayupaniswamy Vs. General of Post Offices & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 4995 of 2006, decided on 13.07.2011. In the case before the Hon''ble Supreme Court, a temple administered by Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu deposited a huge sum of money for a period of 5 years under the Post Office Time Deposit Scheme, during the period from 05.05.1995 to 16.08.1995. On 01.12.1995, the temple received a letter from the Post Master informing that the scheme had been discontinued for investment by individuals w.e.f. 01.04.1995 and therefore, the accounts should be closed without any interest. The amount deposited by the temple was refunded to it on 03.01.1996 without interest. Being aggrieved, the temple approached the concerned State Commission by way of a complaint. The State Commission dismissed the complaint and the order of dismissal was maintained by this Commission. The complainant then approached the Hon''ble Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition later converted into an appeal. The respondent before the Hon''ble Supreme Court, placed reliance upon Rule 16 & 17 of the Post Office Savings Bank General Rules, 1981. Rule 17 of the aforesaid rules provided that where any account was found to have been opened in contravention of any relevant rule applicable to the Post Office Savings Bank, the relevant head of Savings Bank could, at any time, cause the account to be closed and the deposit made in the account refunded to the depositors without interest. Noticing that, the deposit was in contravention of the rules, the Hon''ble Supreme Court held that there was no deficiency in the service on the part of the respondents in providing service to the complainant by refusing to pay interest on the deposited amount. It was submitted before the Hon''ble Supreme Court that the Post Master ought to have taken note of the scheme applicable to the deposit and advised the appellant not to make investment under the said scheme. The Hon''ble Supreme Court was urged to award some reasonable compensation to the appellant for the aforesaid lapse on the part of the postal authorities. The request however, was declined by the Hon''ble Supreme Court holding that in the light of the letter sent by the Post Office to the complainant and in view of Rule 17 of the above referred rules, the failure to pay interest could not have been construed as a deficiency in terms of Section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act. In view of the above referred authoritative pronouncement of the Hon''ble Supreme Court coupled with the lack of evidence to show that the violation of Rule was noticed by the Postal Authorities, even before the maturity of the certificates, it would be difficult for this Commission to say that the opposite party was deficient in rendering services to the complainant by not paying interest on the Kisan Vikas Patras for the stated period of the said patras which was 5 1/2 years from the date of deposit.
In Bhagwati Vanaspati Traders (supra), one Mr. B.K. Garg, sole proprietor of the appellant M/s Bhagwati Vanaspati Traders, purchased National Saving Certificates invested a sum of Rs. 5,000/- on 28.04.1995. The certificate was to mature on 28.04.2001 and the maturity amount was Rs. 10,075/-. However, on maturity, no amount was paid to him and he was informed that investment in the name of M/s Bhagwati Vanaspati Traders was not valid. Being aggrieved, he approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint. The District Forum ruled in his favour and directed refund of the maturity amount alongwith 12% interest. The order passed by the District Forum however, was set aside by the State Commission and the order of the State Commission was upheld by this Commission. Being aggrieved, the complainant approached the Hon''ble Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition later converted into a Civil Appeal. The Hon''ble Supreme Court while rejecting the plea of estoppel advanced by the appellant, noted that M/s Bhagwati Vanaspati Traders was sole proprietorship concern of Mr. B.K. Garg and therefore, only an irregularity was committed while issuing certificate in the name of M/s Bhagwati Vanaspati Traders. It was felt that the irregularity could have been easily removed by substituting the name of M/s Bhagwati Vanaspati Traders with that of Mr. B.K. Garg. The Hon''ble Supreme Court was of the view that the postal authorities having permitted M/s Bhagwati Vanaspati Traders to purchase National Saving Certificates in the year 1995, could not have legitimately raised the challenge of irregularity after March, 2001 specially if the irregularity was curable. Thus, in M/s Bhagwati Vanaspati Traders (supra), the complainant not only got the entire maturity amount but was also awarded interest @ 12% per annum on the entire maturity amount from the date of maturity till the date of payment. The above referred decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, in my opinion, will not apply to the case of the complainant since the investment made by the complainant was not a curable irregularity. It was an investment which the rules did permit at all and therefore, unlike in case of M/s Bhagwati Vanaspati Traders (supra), it could not have been regularized.
............. However, I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the complainant that at least once the Kisan Vikas Patras had matured, the principal amount ought to have been immediately refunded to the complainant without any further delay, since at least on maturity of the patras, the opposite party had discovered that the investment was not permitted under the rules and therefore, there could be no justification for withholding the principal amount of Rs.13303000/- for almost five years. I therefore, hold that the opposite party was deficient in rendering services to the complainant by not refunding the principal amount of Rs.13303000/- immediately on maturity of Kisan Vikas Patras. Therefore, it should pay suitable compensation in the form of interest on that amount. As noted earlier in M/s Bhagwati Vanaspati Traders (supra), the Hon''ble Supreme Court directed payment of interest @ 12% per annum. The investment by the complainant was made around the same time at which investment in M/s Bhagwati Vanaspati Traders was made. Therefore, in my opinion, the compensation in the form of simple interest @ 12% per annum would be just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Since the purchase of National Saving Certificates by an institution was not permitted under the rules, the petitioner either ought to have refrained from selling the said certificates or it ought to have refunded the amount received from the complainant as soon as it came to know that the purchase was irregular on account of an institution not being permitted to invest in National Saving Certificates. It is not in dispute that when on maturity of certificates, the complainant approached the concerned Post Office for payment of the maturity amount of the certificates, she was asked to bring a letter from the Basic Education Officer releasing the said certificates from pledge. It is thus, evident that when the certificates matured, the petitioner came to know that the amount invested by way of National Saving Certificates in the name of complainant belonged to the school and was not owned by the complainant. At that stage, the Post Office ought to have refunded at least the principal amount of Rs.12,000/- to the complainant. That however, was not done. Therefore, the petitioner was clearly deficient in rendering services to the complainant, by not refunding even the principal amount, once it had come to know that the sale of National Saving Certificates to the complainant was irregular being in contravention of the relevant rules.
For the reasons stated hereinabove, the revision petition is disposed of by directing the petitioner to refund the principal amount of Rs.12,000/- to the complainant/respondent alongwith interest @ 10% per annum from the date on which the National Saving Certificates had matured, till the date on which the said amount alongwith interest in terms of this order is actually paid to the complainant. The revision petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.