PRASHANT KUMAR GOYAL AND SONS vs DEPUTY POST MASTER

-BOTH these appeals, one by the complainant and another by the service provider (Postal Department) arise out of the order dated 1. 8. 2006 passed by the District Forum, Hardwar, partly allowing the Consumer Complaint No. 241 of 2003 with cost of Rs. 2,000 and directing the service provider to pay to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of the order, the principal sum of the Kisan Vikas Patras purchased for complainant''s HUF together with interest due during the period at the rate prevalent from time-to-time on Saving Bank Accounts.

FACTS, which emerged out of the pleadings and the material on record, were that the complainant on 11/14. 3. 1998 purchased Kisan Vikas Patras worth Rs. 6,00,000 (Rupees six lacs only) from Post Office, Roorkee (Paper Nos. 36 to 67 on the record of First Appeal No. 212/2006) in favour of HUF Messrs Prashant Kumar Goyal and Sons. The maturity date of the Kisan Vikas Patras was after 5 years from the date of the issue. Under the relevant prevalent rules (Kisan Vikas Patra Rules, 1988), the Kisan Vikas Patras cannot be purchased by the Karta on behalf of the HUF, as there is no such provision under these rules. The irregularity being noticed, the complainant by letter dated 23. 10. 1999 (Paper No. 68) was advised to take immediate payment of the Kisan Vikas Patras irregularly issued. By letter dated 10. 11. 1999 (Paper No. 69), the complainant requested the postal department to make payment of the Kisan Vikas Patras with interest from the date of issue till encashment and in the alternative, to have the Kisan Vikas Patras issued in the name of Sh. Prashant Kumar Goyal, who is the Karta of the HUF. There is not much dispute about these facts. After the maturity date of the Kisan Vikas Patras, consumer complaint was filed with a prayer that the maturity sum of Rs. 12,00,000 together with interest and damages of Rs. 25,000 for mental agony, Rs. 15,000 for financial loss and Rs. 5,000 towards litigation expenses, be directed to be paid by the postal department. It was alleged that the complainant was assured by the postal authorities that the steps were being taken to convert the Kisan Vikas Patras in the individual name of the complainant and that despite assurance, the needful was not done and that despite maturity, the amount due under the Kisan Vikas Patras was not paid by the postal department. The consumer complaint was filed on 28. 10. 2003 more than after a month of the date of maturity of these instruments.

The complaint was contested mainly on the grounds that on irregularity being detected, the complainant was called upon to take immediate payment of the irregularly issued Kisan Vikas Patras; that no assurance was ever given that the Kisan Vikas Patras can be regularized as such in favour of an individual and merely the letter dated 10. 11. 1999 of the complainant was forwarded to Superintendent of Post Offices, Saharanpur; that the complainant never produced Kisan Vikas Patras at the concerned Post Office to take payment of the instruments and that the complainant was not entitled to receive the maturity amount of the instruments with interest and damages.

THE District Forum on an appreciation of the relevant facts of the case observed that though there was deficiency in service in issuing the Kisan Vikas Patras in favour of HUF, but at the same time, the complainant himself has shown inaction in not taking appropriate steps to have his money secured and went on to partly allow the consumer complaint, as stated above. Both the parties got aggrieved and filed these appeals. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have considered their submissions in the light of the facts and legal aspects of the matter in issue. Learned Counsel for the complainant persuasively argued that the postal department has not paid the sum due under the Kisan Vikas Patras even till their maturity and, as such, the District Forum fell in error in not directing the postal department to pay the matured sum of the Kisan Vikas Patras together with interest and damages. We see no merit in the argument for the reason that admittedly after about 1 year and 7 months from the date of the issue of the Kisan Vikas Patras, the irregularity was detected by the postal department and the complainant was called upon to take immediate payment of the irregularly issued Kisan Vikas Patras and since no provision on rule has been shown regarding regularization of such Kisan Vikas Patras by endorsing these in the name of an individual instead of the Karta of HUF, the complainant could not have insisted for payment of maturity sum. It is settled that as soon as Kisan Vikas Patra is issued, it partakes nature of a currency note and unless and until Kisan Vikas Patra is surrendered with the concerned postal authority, the payment of amount due under it cannot legally be made. By letter dated 23. 10. 1999, the postal department had advised the complainant to take immediate payment of the irregularly issued Kisan Vikas Patras and unless and until these Kisan Vikas Patras were surrendered by the complainant, the payment due as early as the year 1999 much before the maturity date, could not have been made to the complainant. By merely sending letter dated 10. 11. 1999 with the request to the postal department to have the Kisan Vikas Patras endorsed in the individual name of Sh. Prashant Kumar Goyal, the complainant was not absolved of his obligation and responsibility to surrender the Kisan Vikas Patras with the concerned postal authority and receive the payment, as may be made to him under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, the District Forum was justified in coming to the conclusion that although there was some deficiency in service on the part of the postal department in issuing the Kisan Vikas Patras in the name of the HUF, but at the same time, the inaction on the part of the complainant delayed the matter and payment could not be made as early as the later part of the year 1999. In our opinion, the complainant continued to retain the irregularly issued Kisan Vikas Patras till their maturity date and thereafter filed consumer complaint seeking the relief as mentioned above, for which he was rightly held not legally entitled.

IN the face of the facts of the case, the decision of the Hon''ble National Commission in the matter of Post Master and Ors. v. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, IV (2005) CPJ 95 (NC), pressed into service on behalf of the complainant, cannot be taken to help his cause. The facts of the reported case were that Kisan Vikas Patras were irregularly issued to an institution and the irregularity could not be noticed till the date of the maturity of the instruments. When the institution, the holder of the Kisan Vikas Patras approached the postal authority for payment of the matured sum, the postal authority intimated that the institution was entitled only to the principal sum as the Kisan Vikas Patras were purchased in an improper manner. The dispute being raised under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, it had finally been accepted that the complainant, the institution was legally entitled to recover maturity amount of the Kisan Vikas Patras with interest. As is evident, the facts of the reported case were at variance inasmuch as the issuance of Kisan Vikas Patras in an improper manner came to the light only after their maturity for no fault of the purchaser. In the instant case, however, the irregularity was noticed before maturity after a year and 7 months of the issuance of the Kisan Vikas Patras and the complainant on being intimated, had not taken appropriate steps for taking immediate payment of the irregularly issued Kisan Vikas Patras and, as such, on the basis of the reported decision, was not entitled to the maturity amount of the Kisan Vikas Patras with interest. As stated above, in the peculiar facts of the case, the District Forum was justified in giving a direction of payment of the amount together with interest at the rate as is payable on Saving Bank Accounts. There can be no gain saying that the view taken being just and proper, we also see no merit in the submission made on behalf of the postal department that the complainant was entitled to principal amount of the Kisan Vikas Patras in view of these being irregularly issued in the name of Karta of HUF. For the reasons aforesaid, both these appeals lack merit and are liable to be dismissed. Appeal Nos. 212 / 2006 and 214 / 2006 are dismissed. No order as to cost.

LET the copy of the order be kept on the record of First Appeal No. 214 / 2006. Appeals dismissed.