RAM NATH MATHURIA vs Union of India

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order of State Commission allowing the appeal, setting aside the order of the District Forum allowing the complaint.

BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that the petitioner had invested Rs. 50,000/- in Indira Vikas Patra (I.V.P.) in Lodi Road Post Office, New Delhi in 1986 for which he was issued provisional receipts. These receipts were stolen in December, 1986 itself for which an F.I.R. was lodged and the respondent Post Master was also informed. In January, 1987, the petitioner''s case is that he was neither delivered India Vikas Patra (what he had lost was the receipt of I.V.P.) nor the amount was paid to him on maturity in December, 1991. In these circumstances, the petitioner approached the District Forum who after hearing both the parties, directed the respondent to pay the IVP''s amount against indemnity as these are lying in safe custody and nobody has come to claim for all these years. On the respondent filing an appeal, the State Commission allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that it is a fact that the provisional receipts were issued, but they were lost, matter was reported to the police and to the respondent authorities way back in December, 1986. Petitioner has been corresponding with the respondent for issue of IVP, which has not been done, he has also been denied encashment on maturity. It is admitted position that I.V.Ps. are lying in safe custody, they matured in December, 1991, nobody has come to claim them during the last 11 years. For a small rectifiable error i.e. loss of receipts, money cannot be denied to them. This non-payment amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. The order of the State Commission needs to be set aside.

The respondent remained absent in spite of notice, hence proceeded ex parte.

THE basic facts are not disputed - about the sale of Vikas Patra, issue of provisional receipts, its loss immediately thereafter by the petitioners, report of loss to police and to the Post Master of Post Office issuing the IVPs i.e. Lodi Road, Delhi. THEse fifty Vikas Patras of Rs. 1,000/- each are kept in safe custody. What is coming in the way of petitioner realising his money/IVPs are the instructions of Director General, Post, reproduced below : "Settlement of cases where preliminary receipt (NC-4a) for issue of Indira Vikas Patras is lost by the investor and IVPs remain undelivered in the Post Office : (1) References have been received from a number of circles regarding settlement of cases where preliminary receipt for issue of Indira Vikas Patras is reported lost by the investor and the Patras prepared against the receipt remain undelivered in the Post Office. (2) THE matter has been examined in consultation. with the Ministry of Finance. In accordance with Rule 6(2) of the IVP Rules, 1986, Indira Vikas Patras can be issued only in exchange of provisional receipt, where such provisional receipt is not produced for any reason and Indira Vikas Patras prepared against the receipt remain undelivered in the Post Office for a period of two months, these may be sent to the Postal Accounts Office for safe custody in accordance with the provisions of Rule 40 of P.O.S.B. Manual Volume II. An entry of their despatch to Postal Accounts Office may also be made in red ink in the remarks column of the Issue and Discharge Register against the relevant registration number. It should be certified by the dated signature of the Post Master. An acknowledgement about the receipt of such certificates may be obtained from the Postal Accounts Office and this acknowledgement may be pasted in the Issue and Discharge Register against the relevant entries. (DG, Posts Letter No. 62-7/87-SB dated 2.6.1988) When the holder loses the Preliminary Receipt and requests for delivery of certificate, the certificate shall not be delivered to him as it is not possible to establish the identity of the holder."

(DG Posts letter No. 62-2/90-SB Dated 29.10.1990) Relevant provision under Sub-rule (4) of Rule 4 of procedural as contained in P.O.S.B. Manual Volume II (Post Office Small Savings Scheme Part II, Ninth edition by A.D. Dureja PP-19) reads as under : "(4) When a holder loses a receipt and requests in writing for the delivery of the certificate without production of the receipt, the certificate will be delivered to him on proper identification and after comparing his signature on the letter with the signature on the application for purchase. A remark about the loss will be made on the office copy of the preliminary receipt under the dated signature of the Post Master and the letter requesting for delivery attached to the application for purchase. In case of a branch office the letter from the holder will be forwarded to its Accounts Office after the holder has been satisfactorily identified. In case of IVPs when a holder loses the Preliminary Receipts and requests for delivery of certificate, the certificate shall not be delivered to him as it is not possible to establish the identity of the holder. (Rule 13 of P.O.S.B. Manual Volume II as amended vide D.G., Posts letter No. 62/22/90-SB dated 29.10.1990)."

THESE instructions point to only one fact that in the very nature of the scheme, the identity of the purchaser was co-terminus with the document. There was no other proof of identity. The only identity the petitioner had, was the provisional receipt and thus according to the instructions on the subject, the right to IVPs goes with this. We have gone through carefully the detailed and well reasoned order of the State Commission. What we are unable to agree is a "blanket wall" approach. In a sovereign democratic and transparent society, it cannot be the case of the respondent that the Investor in IVP forfeit the right to get the money back just because he loses the receipt or is stolen away from him. It could not have been the case of the respondent that the money now vests with them. It is not their case either, otherwise why would they keep the IVPs in safe custody. In our opinion a more pragmatic and dynamic view is required to be taken in such cases. Deficiency in services is perceived from the date in December, 1986 when the complainant reported loss of the receipt of IVPs. He should have been advised by the authorities as to what to do. To tell him "nothing can be done" is rendering no service by a public body, in this case the Government itself. On maturity, money is not given, instead IVPs are kept in safe custody. For how long ? There are no instructions. This itself is a deficiency. In a global village in which we are living, settlement of claims by the Swiss Banks with the next of the heirs of the people who lost their lives in Germany during IInd World War in the holocaust, should guide us in this regard of a positive co-relationship between the service provider and the depositor. In the instant case, these IVPs are still lying unclaimed in safe custody of the respondents, these have not been claimed even after 11 years of maturity, the State could well afford to release the money with all the accompanying benefits after taking an indemnity bond to secure their own interest. Keeping the above in view, we are unable to sustain the order of the State Commission which is set aside. Order of the District Forum is restored. We hope the respondents shall take a more realistic view and refrain from engaging the petitioner in further litigation. No orders as to costs. Revision Petition disposed of.