POST MASTER, UP DAK GHAR vs KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 19.8.1999 passed in Case No. 49/1993 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandleshwar (West Nimar) whereby the complaint for deficiency in service in making the payment of 7 Years National Saving Certificate was allowed with an order to pay the maturity amount of Rs. 1,30,680/- and on that to pay the interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from 21.10.1990 along with Rs. 2,000/- as costs of the proceedings.

LEARNED Counsel for the appellant submits that the National Saving Certificates (V Issue) could not have been issued to the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, therefore, in view of the National Saving Certificates (V Issue) Rules, 1973 (for short the "Rules of 1973"), the certificate could not have been issued, therefore, the respondent was not entitled to the maturity amount. Counsel cited a decision of this Commission in Nagar Palika Parishad Mandla through Mukhy Nagar Palika Adhikari v. Union of India, through Suchana Prasaran Mantralaya & Ors., I (2001) CPJ 352. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and on reappraisal of evidence, we are of the opinion that the issuance of the certificate was in violation of the Rules of 1973 framed under Section 12 of the Government Savings Certificates Act, 1959. Rule 4 of which deals with the types of Certificates and issue thereof and Rule 11 deals with irregular holding, which we quote : "(4) Types of certificates and issue thereof -(1) The certificates shall be of the following types, namely: (a) Single Holder Type Certificates; (b) Joint ''A'' Type Certificates; and (c) Joint ''B'' Type Certificates. (2)(a) Single Holder Type Certificates may be issued to an adult for himself or on behalf of a minor or to a minor.

Rules 4 and 11 of the NSCs (VI/VII-Issue) Rules, 1981 are pari materia to Rules 4 and 11 of 1973 have been considered by this Commission in Nagar Palika Parishad Mandla v. Union of India & Ors. (supra), wherein this Commission observed in Paras 5 to 8 thus : "5. For issue of certificates statutory Rules have been framed. Rule 4 deals with type of certificates and issue thereof, which we quote : ''4. Types of Certificates and Issue thereof.-(1) The certificate shall be of the following types, namely : (a) Single Holder Type Certificates; (b) Joint ''A'' Type Certificates; and (c) Joint ''B'' Type Certificates. (2)(a) Single Holder Type Certificates may be issued to an adult for himself or on behalf of a minor or to a minor. (b) Joint ''A'' Type Certificates may be issued to two adults payable to both holders jointly or the survivor. (c) Joint ''B'' Type Certificates may be issued jointly to two adults payable to either of the holders or the survivor.''

A bare look to Rule 4 clearly shows that the Certificates of this issue can be purchased only in the name of individuals and not in the name of corporations, companies, institutions, firms etc. Therefore, the certificates, which are to be issued to individuals to carry with commutative interest, could not have been issued to the appellant. When the mistake was detected on presentations of the certificates for payment of maturity amount, the postal authorities in our opinion rightly did not make the payment of cumulative interest, as the certificates so issued were irregular.

Rule 11 of the Rules deals with irregular holding, which we quote : ''11. Irregular holding-(1) Any certificate purchased or acquired in contravention of these rules shall be encashed by the holder as soon as the fact of the holding being in contravention of these rules is discovered and no interest shall be paid on any holding in contravention of these rules.

(2) If any interest has been paid on any holding which is in contravention of these rules it shall be forthwith refunded to the Government failing which the Government shall be entitled to recover the amount involved from any money payable by the Government to the investor or as an arrear of land revenue.''

Rule 11 clearly lays down that holder of the irregular certificates would not be entitled to interest in contravention of the Rules. Therefore, the appellant was not entitled to cumulative interest, on the irregular holdings, hence, postal authorities rightly paid the interest on the NSCs as applicable to Savings Bank Account rate or payment of simple interest on the face value of the certificates at the same rate as admissible for the time being in force. For that type of Savings Account which the holder of certificate was entitled to open under the provisions of the Rules."

IN view of the above, in our opinion, the respondent was entitled to the amount deposited with simple prevalent savings bank rate of interest on the amount of Rs. 66,000/- from 21.10.1990 till its payment, which shall be paid by the appellant to the respondent along with Rs. 1,000/- as costs of the proceedings throughout, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The order of the District Forum shall stand substituted as indicated hereinabove. A copy of this order be conveyed to the parties and a copy be sent to the District Forum along with the record of the case. Appeal partly allowed.