MALANCHA DESHBANDHU SAMABAYA KRISHIUNNAYANSAMITY LTD. vs POST MASTER, DEPAL POST OFFICE

THIS is a petition of complainant under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The petitioner is an Association named Malancha Krishi Unnayan Samabaya Samity. The Samity purchased five Kisan Vikas Patras of Rs. 10,000/- each on 20.3.1989 from the Depal Post Office at Midnapur which were to be doubled on maturity after 5 years. On maturity the complainant went to the Postmaster concerned with the certificates to get their matured value. But the Postmaster did not make the payment and took time on the plea that there being some irregularity in the issue of the certificates the payment would require the sanction of the higher authorities (who have been made parties as opposite parties 2 to 4). The petitioner thereafter gave several written reminders for the payment of the money. Ultimately the opposite party No. 1 assured to pay the amount on 29.4.1997, but no payment was made till the date of the filing of the complaint. The petitioner thereafter made a G.D. Entry in the local Police Station in this regard. Ultimately this petition of complainant has been filed for the recovery of the money alongwith compensation and cost making a total claim of Rs. 6,000,00/-. .

THE case is contested by the opposite parties by filing a written statement. THEir first objection is that the claim of the petitioner being inflated to 6 lakhs the State Commission has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the case. THEir next submission is that a co-operative society being not eligible to purchase any Kisan Vikas Patra, the purchase itself was irregular. Such purchase was subsequently regularised by giving two circulars, the second one covering the petitioner''s case. THE regularisation was intimated by the Chief Post Master General, West Bengal Circle, by a letter dated SB5/L-1081/9/96 dated 16.7.1997 which was sent to the petitioner on 17.7.1997. THE petitioner has, however, taken no steps to take the payment. THE opposite parties have further contended that there is no system of payment of interest on the matured value of a Kisan Vikas Patra. THE opposite parties have also denied the claim of compensation as made by the petitioner. The point for determination is if there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and if the petitioner is entitled to the relief claimed. Decision

Admittedly the relevant Kisan Vikas Patras were sold to the petitioner after accepting the full value of the same. The plea of the opposite parties that these purchases were not according to law as prevalent then. Even if that be a fact, does it affect the petitioner''s case ? The K.V. Patras were delivered by the Postmaster on the usual terms. It was his duty to check the regulations in this regard before selling the K.V. Patras. The price was accepted with the explicit condition that the full value would be paid on maturity of the Kisan Vikas Patras. The purchase was eventually regularised also. But there was evidently delay in the process of regularisation. It was an investment of money on the known terms that a certain amount would be paid after a certain period. If there was any irregularity in issuing the certificates, can the investor who had spent good money towards the investment be deprived of the interest on the ground that there was some internal irregularity in the matter of issuing the certificates ? How can the Postal Authorities justify the retention of the money (thereby making illegal enrichment) to the deprivation of the investor ? Who will compensate the investor ? It would be puerile to suggest that the investor shall not be allowed any interest for the money accepted by the Government in igno rance of the procedure and utilising the same for more than the statutory period of investment. In our opinion. Government is estopped from raising the plea of initial irregularity on its part to deprive the petitioner of its dues. Now that the purchase of the relevant k.v.ps. has been regularised there is no bar to the payment of the matured value of them.

THE question, however, is if the petitioner would be entitled to get any interest over the mentioned value of the k.v.ps. We do not know who raised the question of irregularity. A decision ought to have been taken at the earliest stage of the issue. If the Government made any delay to come to a decision, the purchaser of the k.v.Ps. cannot be penalised for it. It is against equity and justice. No fraud has been alleged against the petitioner. Government should, therefore, pay interest on the matured value of the Kisan Vikas Patras from the date of their maturity. The opposite parties have raised objection that the amount of compensation has been inflated in this case to bring the matter within the ''pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission. There is some substance in the allegation. An amount of one lakh (the matured value of the k.v.ps.) cannot ordinarily fetch a compensation of five lakhs after three years. It is a settled principle of law that compensation for nonpayment of money within due time is to be paid by way of interest unless any special damage is specifically proved. No such special damage has been proved in this case. The case has, therefore, been over valued. We deprecate the practice as it takes away the right of appeal to the usual higher Court by compelling the affected party to make the first appeal to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and thereby frustrating the purpose of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. However, we do not think that the case is not adjudicable by the State Commission only on the ground that a very high amount of compensation has been claimed by the petitioner.

THIS case, therefore, succeeds. It is ordered that the petitioner shall get the matured values of the five Kisan Vikas Patras mentioned in the petition of complainant together with an interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the respective dates of their maturity and also a cost of Rs. 500/- (rupees five hundred) only. All the above payments must be made within one month from the date of communication of the order failing which this order shall be enforced by taking recourse to Sections 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Appeal allowed. ______________