POST MASTER vs Murlidhar Aggarwal

THIS revision petition has been filed by the Post Master and Others (hereinafter referred to as the ''Petitioners'') being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ''State Commission'') in Appeal No.527/2005 in favour of Murlidhar Aggarwal and another (hereinafter referred to as the ''Respondents'').

THE facts of the case according to the Respondents/Complainants before the District Forum are that they had purchased 20 Kisan Vikas Patras(KVPs) on 08.11.2002 of Rs.5,000/ - denomination each totalling to Rs.1 lakh from Post Office, Malka Ganj, Delhi in their joint names which were to mature on 15.08.2003 and the maturity value of the same were Rs.2 lakhs. THE said KVPs were issued in lieu of old KVPs bearing No.35 BB 937931 to 35 BB 937934 and 35 BB 933735 to 35 BB 933750 which were in the name of one Dalip Kumar and were transferred from the Post Office, Kota, Rajasthan. THE transaction pertaining to purchase of the above KVPs by the Respondents was facilitated by one Jag Mohan Singh, an authorised agent of the National Savings Organisation (NSO) after payment of the transfer fee to Post Office, Malka Ganj, Delhi for issuing the new KVPs in their names. Due to financial constraints on 19.02.2003, the Respondents applied for premature encashment of the said KVPs followed by a reminder on 09.04.2003. In response, Petitioners expressed their inability to permit premature encashment of the KVPs vide letter dated 21.04.2003 from the Sr. Superintendent of Posts, Northern Division, Delhi which stated that the said KVPs were issued in lieu of stolen KVPs and the Petitioner/Department had lodged an FIR with the Police to this effect which is under investigation and as such payments through these instruments could not be permitted. Since, Respondents were bonafide purchasers of the said KVPs and had obtained the same after taking due care through an authorised agent on payment of necessary fees, they filed a complaint before the District Forum on grounds of deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioners in illegally and unauthorisedly not permitting encashment of the KVPs and requested that the Petitioners be directed to pay them the maturity value of these KVPs i.e. Rs.2 lakhs with interest @ 15% per annum, Rs.25,000/ - as damages and Rs.10,000/ - as cost of litigation etc.

PETITIONERS denied the above contentions and stated that the earlier KVPs which were got transferred by Dalip Kumar fraudulently were never issued by any Post Office but were stolen during transmission between Indian Security Press, Nasik and North -East Stamp Depot, Gauhati. These certificates had, therefore, no maturity value and they were got issued by the Respondents with the connivance of Dalip Kumar by playing a fraud on the Petitioner/Department. Further, Jag Mohan Singh, the authorised agent of the National Savings Organisation also had a role in the fraud and following a departmental inquiry, his agency was terminated. The District Forum after hearing both parties and on the basis of evidence filed before it, allowed the complaint by observing as follows: "It is not the disputed case of OPs that the KVPs are in the name of complainants. It was admitted by the OP in the agreement that the KVPs in the name of complainants are genuine. It is also admitted that the holder of the KVPs is the owner. The OP could not deny the encashing merely because of the criminal investigation and termination of agency of its agent Sh. Jagmohan or issuing of certificates in connivance by the OP. Let the law take its course and if police investigations reveal that the complainants have played fraud they can be charged with the offences attributed to them but in so far as this complaint in hand is concerned this Forum sees that encashment of KVPs cannot be denied."

THE District Forum directed Petitioners to encash the KVPs in favour of the Respondents/Complainants with furnishing of security in the form of indemnity bond/surety at the time of encashment. It also ordered that in case it is found that the Respondents were not genuine holders of the KPVs, the Petitioners would be at liberty to recover the amount paid from the persons standing surety and other assets of the Respondents/Complainants against Indemnity Bond. Aggrieved by this order, Petitioners filed an appeal before the State Commission which dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the District Forum. Hence, the present revision petition.

COUNSEL for Petitioner made oral submissions. None appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Since, the service is complete the case is being proceeded ex parte. COUNSEL for Petitioner while admitting that the KVPs issued in the name of the Respondents were genuine, stated that the premature encashment was rightly not allowed as since these were issued in lieu of stolen KVPs for which an FIR had been registered and the case is subjudice. Prima facie the involvement of the Respondents in the fraudulent transaction could not be ruled out. It was further submitted that Dalip Kumar was arrested and the agency of Jag Mohan Singh, NSO Agent was also terminated in the instant case. The Fora below failed to appreciate these facts and erroneously directed the Petitioners to pay the maturity amount to the Respondents.

WE have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for Petitioners and have gone through the evidence on record. It has not been disputed by the Petitioners that the 20 KVPs bearing Nos. 87BB 073105 to 87 BB 073124 are genuine documents of which Respondents are bonafide holders. It is only the earlier KVPs which were issued in the name of Dalip Kumar which were reportedly stolen with the connivance of Dalip Kumar and the NSO Agent and for which an FIR has been lodged and the case is subjudice. There is no specific evidence to indicate the involvement of the Respondents in this case. Since, as stated earlier they were admittedly in possession of genuine KVPs, they therefore, cannot be penalized for any fraud or connivance on the part of the Agent or the earlier holder of the stolen KVPs. WE, therefore, agree with the finding of the District Forum which was confirmed by the State Commission that the Petitioners cannot deny encashment of the genuine KVPs to its bonafide holders on the grounds that a criminal case has been filed. The District Forum has rightly observed that if Police investigations prove that the Respondents have also been involved in the fraud, they can be charged with the offences attributed to them but so far as this complaint is concerned, encashment of the KVPs cannot be withheld.

IN view of the above facts, we see no merit in the present revision petition which is dismissed. The order of the State Commission is upheld and the Petitioners are directed to encash the KVPs of the Respondents upon furnishing of security in the form of INdemnity Bond/surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Client at the time of encashment within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order.