POST MASTER GENERAL vs BABU RAM

BRIEFLY stated facts giving rise to this case are that the respondent got Indira Vikas Patras (IVPs) of Rs. 6,318 in the year 1996 from his employer and were to mature in 2002. These were lost on 20. 10. 1998 between Chhota Shimla and Lakkar Bazar while respondent was coming to his office. FIR was lodged with the police. Further case of the respondent was that it was given to understand by the appellants that the amount of IVPs would be given to him on the date of maturity i. e. , in May, 2002. He further alleged that he unsuccessfully approached the authorities, though he was ready and willing to furnish the bond. When despite all this, amount was not paid he filed the complaint.

DISTRICT Forum after placing reliance on a decision of this Commission in the case of Head Post Office, Solan v. Pratap Singh, I (2004) CPJ 587=latest HLJ 2004 (HP) 103, ordered that the amount of IVPs along with interest be refunded to the complainant subject to his executing indemnity bond in favour of appellants so as to safeguard the interest of Post Offices, litigation cost of Rs. 500 was also levied on the appellants. At the time of hearing Mr. Arora, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that in case of a lost of IVP, as in the present appeal, the matter has been set at rest by a reasoned decision of the Supreme Court of India and is thus no more res integra. On the other hand, Mr. Thakur made an attempt to distinguish this judgment with a view to persuade us to uphold the impugned order passed by the District Forum below 4. After having gone through the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Central Government of India and Ors. v. Krishnaji Parvetesh Kulkarni, III (2006) SLT 352= (2006) 4 SCC 275, we find that the present appeal is squarely covered by the decision of Hon''ble Supreme Court of India. Relevant paragraph from the aforesaid judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India are extracted hereinbelow :

"11. An IVP is akin to an ordinary currency note. It bears no name of the holder. Just as to lost currency note cannot be replaced, similarly the question of replacing a lost IVP does not arise. Rule 7 (2) makes the position clear that a certificate lost, stolen, mutilated, defaced or destroyed beyond recognition will not be replaced by any Post Office. Similar is the position as regards the certificate which is either lost or stolen. Undisputedly, there was no challenge to the legality of Rule 7 (2 ). In the absence of a challenge to the provision, any direction should not really have been given. It is fundamental that no direction which is contrary to law can be given.

Therefore, the impugned order in each appeal cannot be sustained. It is, however, evident from the record in Civil Appeal No. 4819 of 2000 that the respondent has been paid the amount pursuant to the direction given in the suit as affirmed by the High Court. The respondent shall not be liable to refund the amount in the peculiar circumstances of the case. So far as the other appeal is concerned, if the appellant have not made the payment, they shall not be liable to make payment. But if the payment has already been made as in Civil Appeal No. 4819 of 2000 then no recovery shall be made.

This direction is being given in view of the statement made by learned Counsel for the appellants that considering the small amount involved, the appellant will not claim refund, but the position in law has to be set at rest as large number of such claims are being made. "

While passing this judgment provision of IVP Rules, 1986 were also gone into by the Hon''ble Supreme Court. These rules were framed in exercises of powers conferred under the Government Savings Certificate Act, 1959. The plain reading of paras 11 to 13 extracted to above, clearly indicate that the nature of IVPs is like currency notes as it bear no name of the holder, therefore, just as a lost currency note cannot be replaced, so is the position of IVP. No decision to the contrary of the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India has been brought to our notice on behalf of the respondent.

NO other point is urged. In view of the aforesaid discussion this appeal deserves to be allowed and it is ordered accordingly. As a result of the order passed by District Forum below in Complaint No. 513/2003 on 11. 7. 2005 is hereby quashed and set aside and consequently the complaint filed by the respondent stands dismissed. All interim orders passed from time-to-time shall stand vacated forthwith. Office will make available a copy of this order to the parties free of costs as per rules. Appeal allowed.