Post Master General General Post Office vs AMANDEEP SINGH

THIS appeal has been filed by the Post Master General, General Post Office, Fifth Floor, Sector 17, Chandigarh, Superintendent of Post Offices, District Amritsar, 4 Maqbool Road, Amritsar and Post Master, Post Office, Village and P.O. Bhikhiwind, District Amritsar against the order dated 9.10.2000 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -II, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum -II) vide which costs of Rs. 550/ - were awarded and the appellant/opposite party was directed to pay interest @ 12% per annum on the amount that fell due on maturity till it was paid on 29.4.1999.

THE respondent/complainant Amandeep Singh son of Shri Anoop Singh Gill, student of Class VIth, Shivalik Public School, SAS Nagar, Mohali (minor through his lawful guardian Shri Baldev Singh Gill, resident of H.No. 439, Phase VI, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Distt. Ropar) filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short hereinafter referred to as the C.P. Act) before the District Forum -II alleging, inter alia, that Shri Anoop Singh had purchased National Saving Certificates in the name of his son Amandeep Singh for his interest and security. The details of the National Saving Certificates have been mentioend in Annexure C -1 which are 28 in number and are as under : Sr. No. N.S. Certificate No Date of Issue Regn. No. Value of Certificate Maturity Amount Date of Maturity 1. 380110 8.1.1987 788 Rs. 500.00 Rs. 1007.50 8.1.1993 2. 380142 3.2.1987 809 Rs. 500.00 Rs. 1007.50 3.2.1993 3. 579659 12.3.1987 846 Rs. 500.00 Rs. 1007.50 12.3.1993 4. 579787 23.4.1987 929 Rs. 500.00 Rs. 1007.50 22.4.1993 5. 578433 27.5.1987 947 Rs. 500.00 Rs. 1007.50 27.5.1993 6. 578437 12.6.1987 952 Rs. 500.00 Rs. 1007.50 12.6.1993 7. 578443 16.7.1987 965 Rs. 500.00 Rs. 1007.50 16.7.1993 8. 578444 4.8.1987 973 Rs. 500.00 Rs. 1007.50 4.8.1993 9. 578445 21.9.1987 985 Rs. 500.00 Rs. 1007.50 21.9.1993 10. 578446 14.10.1987 987 Rs. 500.00 Rs. 1007.50 14.10.1993 11. 578459 12.11.1987 1003 Rs. 500.00 Rs. 1007.50 12.11.1993 12. 578475 16.12.1988 1023 Rs. 500.00 Rs. 1007.50 16.12.1993 13. 578477 6.1.1988 1036 Rs. 500.00 Rs. 1007.50 6.1.1994 14. 868107 18.2.1988 1062 Rs. 500.00 Rs. 1007.50 18.2.1994 15. 868192 29.3.1988 1100 Rs. 500.00 Rs. 1007.50 29.3.1994 16. 868277 22.4.1988 1141 Rs. 500.00 Rs. 1007.50 22.4.1994 17. 868294 31.5.1988 1154 Rs. 500.00 Rs. 1007.50 31.5.1994 18. 868301 24.6.1988 1157 Rs. 500.00 Rs. 1007.50 24.6.1994 19. 868302 15.7.1988 29 Rs. 500.00 Rs. 1007.50 15.7.1994 20. 868303 19.8.1988 1159 Rs. 500.00 Rs. 1007.50 19.8.1994 21. 868304 17.9.1988 1160 Rs. 500.00 Rs. 1007.50 17.9.1994 22. 868312 25.10.1988 1162 Rs. 500.00 Rs. 1007.50 25.10.1994 23. 868315 22.11.1988 1168 Rs. 500.00 Rs. 1007.50 22.11.1994 24. 868422 28.12.1988 1176 Rs. 500.00 Rs. 1007.50 28.12.1994 25. 868423 17.1.1989 1179 Rs. 500.00 Rs. 1007.50 17.1.1995 26. 868425 27.2.1989 1190 Rs. 500.00 Rs. 1007.50 27.2.1995 27. 868468 25.8.1989 1214 Rs. 500.00 Rs. 1007.50 25.8.1995 28. 239105 27.12.1989 03 Rs. 5000.0 Rs. 10075.0 27.12.1995

The last certificate of National Saving bearing No. 239105 dated 27.12.1989, Registration No. 03 for a sum of Rs. 5,000/ - with its maturity value of Rs. 10,075/ - became matured for payment on 27.12.1995. The National Saving Certificates aforesaid are related to years 1993, 1994 and 1995 and some of these were presented for encashment before the opposite party No. 3 - Post Master, Post Office, Vill and P.O. Bhikhiwind, Distt. Amritsar for the year 1994 but the amount was not paid. It has been alleged that the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 i.e. Superintendent of Post Offices, District Amritsar and Post Master, Post Offices, Vill. and P.O. Bhikhiwind, Distt. Amritsar kept on making false promises to the complainant No. 1 Sh. Amandeep Singh s/o Sh. Anoop Singh Gill that the amount of maturity would be paid in short time. The payment was, however, not made. The opposite party No. 2 demanded a special power of attorney from complainant No. 1 who got prepared a special power of attorney in respect of the guardianship of the ward and the same was submitted to the opposite party No. 2 vide Annexure C -3. The opposite party No. 2 again demanded another power of attorney and affidavit from complainant No. 1 which were also supplied as and when demanded but still the amount of maturity was not paid. The complainant No. 1 prayed that the opposite parties be directed to make the payment of Rs. 30,264/ - being maturity amount along with interest @ 24% for three years on the maturity amount and the compensation of Rs. 50,000/ - for the loss suffered by the complainant.

ON behalf of the opposite parties reply was filed wherein it was disputed that the National Saving Certificates were purchased as per averments made in the complaint and the amount of the certificates on maturity was payable at the Post Office, Village and P.O. Bhikhiwind. It was, however, contended that the Post Master General, Punjab Circle, Chandigarh has no connection with such payment and the proper and necessary parties to the complaint at best be respondent Nos. 2 and 3 alone. The territorial jurisdictional of the District Forum was also questioned and it was contended that the complaint lay within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum at Amritsar. It was contended further that the Sub Post Master, Post Office, Bhikhiwind did not make payment as the power of attorney given by the father of the minor residing in Canada was not duly authenticated by the High Commissioner of India in Canada on the basis of which the payment could be made. It was contended that the power of attorney submitted by the complainant was not authenticated by the High Commissioner of India in Canada and as such encashment of certificates were not made by the opposite party No. 3. In the reply, it was mentioned that the Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices, Amritsar had informed Shri Baldev Singh Gill, 439, Phase 6, Mohali vide letter No. SB/Bhikhiwind/96 dated 24.6.1996 and reminder dated 18.12.1996 to obtain the power of attorney duly authenticated by the High Commissioner of India in Canada but he failed to submit the same so far.

THE complainant led evidence in the form of affidavit of lawful guardian Shri Baldev Singh Gill who supported the averments of the complaint on oath. On behalf of the opposite parties, affidavit of Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices, Amritsar was filed verifying the facts averred in the reply. It appears that during the pendency of the complaint case, the payment of the maturity value of the National Saving Certificates was made and the photo -copies of the roof of payment was placed on record by the Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices, Amritsar and this fact was mentioned in the order under appeal which, inter alia reads as under : ''Inspite of the direction on the last date, no affidavit has been filed on behalf of the complainant indicating the date on which he received the payment. In any case, the Counsel for the opposite party has placed on record the copies of letters dated 28.4.2000 and 23.6.2000. From this, it appears that the payment was made on 29.4.1999. The case was filed in 1996. The payment has been made to the complainant during the pendency of the case...''

Thereafter, the District Forum considered the effect of the payment made during the pendency of the appeal insofar as the claim of interest on the amount of maturity value of the National Saving Certificates was concerned, the District Forum dealt with this matter as under :

''...The point that survives for decision is, how the complainant should be compensated for delay in the payment of money to the complainant. So, this complaint is allowed with the directions that apart from the cost of Rs. 550/ -, the opposite party shall pay interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on the amount that fell due on maturity till it was paid on 29.4.1999.''

Feeling aggrieved against the order of the District Forum -II, Chandigarh, the opposite parties have filed this appeal. The complainant/respondents have put in appearance through the Counsel Mr. A.S. Walia, Advocate. The record of the case was summoned. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant. We have also perused the order under appeal and the record of the case. The sole point urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the appellants particularly the appellant No. 3 - Post Master, Post Office, Vill. and P.O. Bhikhiwind, District Amritsar was justified in not making the payment of the maturity value of the National Saving Certificates as there was no authentication by the High Commissioner of India in Canada to the power of attorney. It is not disputed that the National Saving Certificates were purchased in the name of the minor Amandeep Singh son of Shri Anoop Singh. As a matter of fact, the maturity amount of the National Saving Certificates was to be paid to Amandeep Singh. The father of Amandeep Singh namely Sh. Anoop Singh was residing in Canada. The lawful guardian in the Village was Shri Baldev Singh Gill. Once the amount of National Saving Certificates became due for payment and the National Saving Certificates were duly presented before the Post Master of the concerned Post Office and the power of attorney was filed which was duly attested, the payment could not be refused only for the absence of the authentication by the Competent Authority. The complainant No. 1 was thus put to unnecessary harassment regarding the payment of the maturity value of the certificates. In the reply filed by the appellants reference was made to Rule 31(4) Sub -rule 56(18) of Post Office Small Savings Scheme Part -III of A.N. Dureja, 5th Edition 1993 for authentication by the High Commissioner of India in Canada and referred to the enclosure of the photo -copy of the rules. The same rule was referred to in para 6 of the affidavit of the Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Amritsar on record of the complaint case but does not show any such photo -copy of the rules quoted above having been placed on record nor extracted in the reply or affidavit. It was also not shown to us during the course of arguments by the learned Counsel for the appellant. However, we have gone through the relevant rules referred to above by getting the book referred to in the reply as well as the affidavit of the respondent. Rule 31 of the Post Office Small Saving Schemes Rules deals with encashment of certificate. Rule 31(4) deals with payment to persons holding power of attorney and it laid down as under :

''Payment to persons holding power -of -attorney -The postmaster will satisfy himself that the power -of -attorney is in order. The person receiving payment must grant the usual receipt for payment on the reverse of the certificate adding below his signature the words duly constituted attorney for A.B. (Name of holder of certificate). The Postmaster will make a note of the particulars of the power of attorney below the payees receipt for payment and the fact that the power of attorney was examined by him and found to be in order.

The above procedure will be followed for the encashment of certificates belonging to lepers or invalids or a literate holder who has since become incapacitated. In these cases the power of attorney should be attested by a Magistrate.''

Rule 56(18) provides for settlement of deceased depositors claim on Savings Bank/Saving Certificates where either the claimant or some near relations is/are living abroad : ''(18) There have been difficulties in settling claims on account of deceased depositors SB, etc. accounts and Savings Certificates where claimant or some near relation(s) is/are living abroad. With a view to eliminating these difficulties, the following procedure is laid down. (1) Claim from a claimant residing in a foreign country, letter of consent from a person residing in a foreign country, power of attorney executed in a foreign country and death certificate issued in a foreign country if reciprocal arrangements under Section 14 of the Notaries Act, 1952 do not exist between India and that country. Authentication means that the authenticating official has assured himself of the person who has signed the instrument, as well as the fact of execution. In case India has no consular relations with the country and no other foreign nation has been entrusted with the task of looking after the interests of India or of the people of Indian origin there, the authentication should be done by a Magistrate of that country. (2) Reciprocal arrangement under Section 14 of the exists between India and the countries of United Kingdom, Hungary, Ireland, Belgium and New Zealand only. The documents executed before a Notary in any of these countries does not require authentication by the Indian Consular Office in that country. (3) Payment of the claim to a claimant residing in a foreign country will be made to the holder of power of attorney. No direct remittance will be made to the claimant in the foreign country. [D.G.P. and T letter No. 61 -3/81 -SB dated 12.4.1982].''

AT the very outset, it may be mentioned that Rule 56 deals with specifically the cases of payment of the value of Saving Certificates in the name of the deceased holders. In the instant case, the National Saving Certificates were held by the complainant No. 1 who is very much alive though he is a minor yet he is represented by a legal guardian Shri Baldev Singh Gill. A perusal of Section 31(4) will go to show that the Post Master had to satisfy himself that the Power of Attorney being in order. There is nothing on record to show that the Post Master of the concerned Post Office i.e. opposite party No. 3 of the complaint and the appellant No. 3 in the appeal was not so satisfied about the Power of Attorney being in order. The provisions of Rule 56(18) will not apply to the cases of payment to the holders of the saving bonds who are alive. Therefore, none of the rules referred to in the reply put a bar on the opposite party No. 3 to withhold the payment without due authentication of the Power of Attorney by the concerned High Commissioner. Therefore, the stand taken by the appellants in this regard lacks merit and is rejected. Apart from it, it is not disputed that the National Saving Certificates were purchased in the name of the complainant No. 1 Shri Amandeep Singh, minor under the lawful guardianship of Shri Baldev Singh Gill and he was the holder of the National Saving Certificate which were produced before the opposite party No. 3 - Post Master of Post Office, Village Bhikhiwind who did not have any doubt or suspicion regarding the identity of the holder of the National Saving Certificates or about the lawful guardian Shri Baldev Singh Gill and at any rate, no such objection was raised. The objection was only regarding the authentication of the Power of Attorney by the High Commissioner of India in Canada. In our considered view, the purpose of the rule is only the satisfaction about the genuineness of the Power of Attorney executed. In the instant case, the payment was to be received by the minor and the minor was under the lawful guardianship of Shri Baldev Singh Gill which fact has not been disputed. In case Shri Baldev Singh Gill lawful guardian of the complainant No. 1 Shri Amandeep Singh presented the National Saving Certificates after the maturity date, the same could under relevant rules be paid to the minor through his lawful guardian.

THE appellants had raised objection regarding the jurisdiction of the District Forum to entertain the complaint on the ground that the appellant No. 1 - Post Master General, General Post Office, Fifth Floor, Sector 17, Chandigarh, had no connection with the subject -matter of the complaint and the remaining two appellants had their offices situated in the Amritsar District, State of Punjab and as such the complaint ought to have been filed before the District Forum, Amritsar in the State of Punjab. It appears to us that the appellants who were opposite parties before the District Forum did not press the question of jurisdiction and particularly the role of the appellant No. 1 - Post Master General, General Post Office, Fifth Floor, Sector 17, Chandigarh and the District Forum did not deal with the question of jurisdiction in the order under appeal. However, the very fact that the Post Master General, General Post Office, Fifth Floor, Sector 17, Chandigarh - opposite party No. 1 has joined the appellants as appellant No. 1 and challenged the order of the District Forum, the question of jurisdiction has been apparently given up. Even otherwise, the Office of the Post Master General is the over all controlling authority over the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 i.e. the Superintendent of Post Offices and the Post Master of the Post Office concerned. The complainant had thus impleaded the Post Master General as opposite party No. 1 in the supervisory jurisdiction. In paras 11 and 12 of the complaint, the complainant made the following averment regarding the concern of the appellant No. 1/opposite party No. 1 - Post Master General, General Post Office, Fifth Floor, Sector 17, Chandigarh as under : ''11. That since the opposite party No. 1 is the overall Head of the Department of the opposite parties, and is wholly responsible for all the acts and deeds done by his subordinates in the discharge of their official duties, therefore, the opposite party No. 1 is also a necessary party and liable to make good the loss suffered by the complainants. 12. That since the opposite party No. 1 is having its offices at Chandigarh within the jurisdiction of this Honble Forum, therefore, this complaint is triable at Chandigarh.''

The reply filed on behalf of the opposite parties shows that a preliminary objection was taken wherein it was, inter alia, mentioned as under : ''...The Post Master General, Punjab Circle, Chandigarh has no connection with such payment. The proper and necessary parties to the complaint at best be respondent Nos. 2 and 3 alone. Even otherwise also the claim for the amount of maturity value of the said certificates was made at aforementioned Post Office in Amritsar District and it was at that Post Office only that the claimant was advised to produce duly notarized and authenticated Power of Attorney of the father of the complainant. In these circumstances the cause of action, if any, arose in favour of the complainant within the jurisdiction of Amritsar District. Hence, this Honble Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint.''

The reply on merits indicates that para 11 of the complaint which has been quoted above did not deal with the over all supervision of the Post Master General, General Post Office, Chandigarh. Para 11 of the reply reads as under :

''11. The Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices, Amritsar had informed Shri Baldev Singh Gill, 439, Phase 6, Mohali vide letter No. SB/Bhikhiwind/96 dated 24.6.1996 and reminder dated 18.12.1996 to obtain the power of attorney duly authenticated by the High Commissioner of India in Canada but he failed to submit the same so far.''

Para 12 of the reply which deals with the averment made in para 12 of the complaint; which has also been extracted above runs as under :

''12. The complainant has filed complaint at Chandigarh which is not in jurisdiction of Consumer Forum, Amritsar covering the place of Post Office Bhikhiwind from where the National Saving Certificates were got issued by the father of the minor.''

It is relevant to note that in paras 11 and 12 of the reply to the averments made in paras 11 and 12 of the complaint, no specific reply has been made regarding the overall supervision and duty of the opposite party No. 1/appellant No. 1 - Post Master General, General Post Office, Fifth Floor, Sector 17, Chandigarh. It is thus evident that the averments made in para 11 having not been specifically controverted regarding the overall supervision of appellant No. 1/opposite party No. 1 and in that supervisory capacity, the opposite party No. 1 was impleaded in the complaint case. It is not disputed that the office of the opposite party 1 - Post Master General, General Post Office, Chandigarh is located in Sector 17, Chandigarh and within the jurisdiction of the District Forum, U.T., Chandigarh. Section 11 of the C.P. Act deals with the jurisdiction of the District Forum and provides as under :

''11. Jurisdiction of the District Forum -(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed (does not exceed rupees five lakhs). (2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, - (a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or (carriers on business or has a branch office) or personally works for gain; or (b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or (carries on business or has a branch office) or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or (carry on business or have a branch office) or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or (c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.'' A perusal of Section 11, Sub -section (2) of the C.P. Act will go to show that the complaint could not be instituted in the District Forum, U.T., Chandigarh as one of the opposite parties had its office located within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum at U.T., Chandigarh. In view of the foregoing discussion, the objection raised by the appellant regarding the lack of jurisdiction of the District Forum, U.T., Chandigarh has no substance and the complaint has rightly been tried and decided by the District Forum, U.T., Chandigarh.

IN view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any error or infirmity in the order under appeal. The rate of interet of 12% per annum cannot be held to be excessive. The appeal lacks merit and is dismissed. Under the circumstances of the case, the costs shall be borne by the parties themselves. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of charges. Appeal dismissed.