N.K.PRAKASAM vs Senior Superintendent of Post Offices

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 29.12.1997 in O.P. 220/1997 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Erode. The appellant is the complainant while the respondents are the opposite parties.

THE complainant is one N.K. Prakasam, President, ET 1514, Pariyur Nanjagounden Palayam Milk Producers Cooperative Society, Pariyur Nanjagounden Palayam, Gobi - 638 476 [for short, "the Society"]. THE opposite parties are : (1) Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Erode Division, Erode, and (2) Post Master, Gobichettipalayam Post Office, Head Post Office, Main Road, Gobichettipalayam. The President of the Society purchased three Kisan Vikas Patras on 26.5.1995 each for Rs. 5,000/- from Gobichettipalayam Post Office of which the 1st and 2nd opposite parties are respectively Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Erode Division, Erode and Post Master, Gobichettipalayam Post Office, Head Post Office, Gobichettipalayam. The Patras so purchased were to mature after the elapse of 5 years on 25.11.2001. On the maturity date, the face value of the Patra will get doubled.

There was a routine inspection of the said Post Office on 24.12.1996. During the course of such inspection, it was found out that the aforesaid three Kisan Patras had been irregularly issued contrary to the direction of the Director General, Department of Posts, New Delhi. It appears, the Director General Department of Posts, New Delhi in his letter No. 61/11/1995 - SB dated 9.3.1995 issued directions and instructions to all the institutions to discontinue the issue of Kisan Vikas Patras with effect from 1.4.1995. There was however no prohibition for the issue of Kisan Vikas Patras to trust and individuals. The Kisan Vikas Patras to the complainant, it appears, were issued due to callous, carelessness on the part of the opposite parties in not noticing the letter issued by the Director General, Department of Posts, New Delhi.

THE moment the irregular issue made to the complainant was found out during the course of inspection that took place on 24.12.1996, intimation was made to the complainant forthwith as respects the irregular issue, asking the complainant to encash the Certificates. THE complainant of course was willing to encash the Certificates provided the opposite parties were prepared to pay interest till upto the date of encashment, interest @ 12% p.a. THE opposite parties were however not enable for the encashment of the Kisan Vikas Patras by paying interest as claimed by the complainant. Consequently, the complainant without surrendering the Kisan Vikas Patras for encashment with the opposite parties, knocked at the doors of the Forum below alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and claiming certain reliefs as prayed for in the complaint. The opposite parties in pith and substance would contend that the Kisan Vikas Patras of course had been issued to the complainant contrary to the direction of the Director General, Department of Posts, New Delhi. The reasons for such issuance of the Kisan Vikas Patras was sheer inadvertance. The complainant as per the provisions as adumbrated under Rules 10 and 11 of the National Savings Certificates Rules, 1970 is not entitled to encash the Kisan Vikas Patras at the earliest possible time on coming to know of the irregular issue of the Kisan Vikas Patras and no interest will be paid on such Patras. However, the opposite parties would say that there is an option of alternative encashment of the irregularly issued Kisan Vikas Patras with interest as applicable in Savings Bank account rate or payment of simple interest of 5% on the face value of the certificates at the same rate as admissible for the time being in force for the type of savings account opened under the provisions of the Post Office Savings Rules, 1981. As such, there is no deficiency in service on their part and, therefore, it is the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

THE Forum below after taking into consideration the materials placed on record recorded a finding that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and consequently dismissed the complaint without costs. Aggrieved by the order as above, the aggrieved complainant resorted to the present action by engaging a Counsel of his choice namely learned Counsel M/s. V.K. Vijayaraghavan, R. Rajaramani and M.R.S. Prabhu. On service of process, the respondents/opposite parties entered appearance through a Counsel of their choice namely learned Counsel Mr. R. Karunakaran.

WE heard the arguments of learned Counsel Mr. R. Rajaramani, appearing for the appellant/complainant and learned Counsel Mr. J. Venkatesan, representing learned Counsel Mr. R. Karunakaran, appearing for the respondents/opposite parties.

EVEN at the outset, we may point out that the Forum below committed a grave error in not appreciating the factual matrix of the case on hand in the proper perspective in the process of giving a legal fitment and arrive at a just decision in the case on hand. It is not as if the issuance of Kisan Vikas Patras are not governed by any rules. The plain fact is that the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 12 of Government Savings Certificates Act, 1959 (46 of 1959), made Kisan Vikas Patra Rules, 1988 [for short, "Rules, 1988"]. The Rules, 1988 contain provisions relatable to the denomination of the Certificate, the procedure for the purchase of Certificates, place of encashment, encashment on maturity, premature encashment and so on and so forth. By a thorough scanning and sifting of those rules, we are unable to find any provision in the rule relatable to what is to happen in the case of irregular issue of Kisan Vikas Patra. It appears, the salient features of the scheme had been outlined by the Director General of Posts in his letter No. 61-12/88-SB dated 25.3.1988. The salient feature in the said letter figuring as No. 12 prescribes that the procedure relating to National Savings Certificates as laid down in P.O.S.B. Manual Volume II shall apply mutatis mutandis to the new series of certificates. It is based upon such a letter, the opposite parties sent a communication under Ex. A4 dated 4.4.1997 to the complainant indicating the alternative option available to the complainant as indicated during the course of summation of facts. The question is whether the internal communication issued by the Director General of Posts to all postal institutions will govern the third parties like the complainant. Such an internal communication as issued by the Director General, we rather feel cannot at all be put against the complainant and say that for the irregular issue of Kisan Vikas Patras to the complainant as a consequence of callous negligence on the part of the opposite parties the complainant has to bear the brunt of any loss or injury occasioned to him/them. We have already noticed that the Rules, 1988 did not contain any such thing as had been mentioned in the letter of the Director General of Posts.

Pertinent it is at this juncture to notice the definition of "deficiency" as defined under Section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [for short, "the Act"] which reads as under : "2. Definitions.-(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-- ....................................... ....................................... (g) "deficiency" means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service."

FROM what has been extracted above, it is crystal clear that "deficiency" as contemplated in the said section may spring from three sources. They are, (1) under any law for the time being in force; (2) has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract; and (3) otherwise in relation to any service. We are governed only with the first source of deficiency in the case on hand. Admittedly, even according to the opposite parties the issuance of Kisan Vikas Patras is discontinued with effect from 1.4.1995 to institutions like the complainant/society even though there is no prohibition for the issuance of such Patras to the individuals and trust. It is due to the callous negligence of the opposite parties Kisan Vikas Patras were issued to the complainant/society even though they came forward to purchase the Kisan Vikas Patras subsequent to 1.4.1995. The complainant/society cannot at all be blamed for coming forward with the purchase of the said Patras on their part on 26.5.1995 when especially the internal communication issued by the Director General of Postal Institutions is not within the knowledge of the third parties like the complainant/society. It is due to the callous negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the Kisan Vikas Patras had been issued to the complainant/society on 26.5.1995. Admittedly, three Patras each for Rs. 5,000/- were issued on 26.5.1995 getting matured on 25.11.2001. Admittedly, the Kisan Vikas Patras issued gets doubled by the elapse of 5 years. The Kisan Vika Patra holders like Trust and individuals enjoy the benefit of the face value getting doubled after the elapse of 5 years. If the third party like the complainant was aware of the prohibition of the issuance of such Patras to the institutions like the complainant/society, three was no chance for the complainant/society to have ventured for the purchase of Kisan Vikas Patras. We may reiterate and state for the sake of emphasis that only as a consequence of callous negligence on the part of the opposite parties, such Patras had been issued to the complainant/society. Therefore, the opposite parties has to necessarily bear the brunt of burden of deficiency in service on their part which resulted in the doubling of the Kisan Vikas Patras by sheer elapse of time of 5 years as on 25.11.2001. The Kisan Vikas Patras as a consequence of the dispute arising between the parties are still with the complainant/society. 5 years elapsed from the date of the purchase of the patras on 25.11.2001. As such, the face value of the three Patras amounting to Rs. 15,000/- will have the maturity value of Rs. 30,000/- on 25.11.2001. Such being the case, we direct the opposite parties to pay to the complainant/society forthwith the maturity value of the patras, i.e., Rs. 30,000/- on the complainant/society surrendering the Kisan Vikas Patras on or before 19.12.2001. If the maturity value of the Patras is not paid on the surrendering of the Kisan Vikas Patras on 19.12.2001, the opposite parties must have to further pay interest @ 12% p.a. on and from 19.12.2001 till payment. We also direct that the amount of the award has to be initially paid from the coffers of the Department forthwith deducting the face value of the amount of Rs. 15,000/- from the amount so paid to the complainant/society the balance of the paid amount must have to be deducted from the monthly salary of the opposite parties in equal proportion by the Post Master General, Tamil Nadu Circle, Chennai and the deduction so made from the salaries of the opposite parties must have to be reported before this Commission by the Post Master General, Tamil Nadu Circle, Chennai, within three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Post Master General, Tamil Nadu Circle, Chennai-600 002. We are of course rather constrained to make such an order. We are of the view that if the entirety of the amount is to be paid from the coffers of the Department, it will not have any telling effect on the administrative set-up of the Postal Department. Further, it will tantamount to wastage of public funds. The excess payments beyond the face value resulted in being paid to the complainant/society as a consequence of callous negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and naturally they have to bear the brunt of the burden and this will have a direct impact on them in not being negligent or callous in the performance of their duties or functions during their career which will be a bow to the public at large.

THE appeal is thus allowed; the order of the Forum below is set aside and disposed of accordingly. We however make no order as to costs on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. Call on 11.3.2001 Appeal allowed.