Senior Superintendent of Post Offices vs KAMAL KHOSLA

DISTRICT Forum, Gurdaspur on July 25,1996 directed Post Office to pay the amount due on saving certificates to the complainant Smt. Kamal Khosia alongwith 18% p.a. interest from the date of maturity of the certificates till payment with Rs. 2,000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs. 1,000/- towards litigation expenses. That order has been challenged by the opposite parties in this appeal. The details of the certificates pur- chased with date of maturity are given in the impugned order. They are six in number. The certificates were purchased jointly in the names of Kewal Kumar Khosla husband of Smt. Kamal Khosla, complainant and hi s mother Radha Rani. After the death of Radha Rani, Kewal Kumar Khosla being survivor was entitled to the amount of certificates after they matured. Kewal Kumar Khosia having died, his widow Kamal Khosla preferred the claim. Since the Postal Authorities directed her to produce Succession Certificate, she approached the DISTRICT Forum alleging deficiency in rendering service on the part of the Postal Authorities in not releasing the amount of the certificates to the complainant who being widow was entitled to receive the amount belonging to her husband Kewal Kumar Khosla. It was also asserted that she was the nominee in the certificates. The opposite parties while contesting the complaint in their version admitted having issued the certificates and directed the complainant to produce Succession Certificate to complete the process of release of the amount. Thus, they denied deficiency in rendering service in the facts stated above. On the evidence produced by the parties and the documents, the impugned order was passed by the DISTRICT Forum.

MR. I.S. Sidhu, learned Advocate for the appellant-Post Office Department has argued that since the amount of the certificates club together exceeded Rs. 20,000/-, the limit prescribed under the Rules, the opposite parties were fully justified in calling upon the complainant to produce Succession Certificate before releasing the amount. Thus, it has been argued that there was no deficiency in rendering service on the part of the opposite parties. Reference has been made to Rules 29 and 50 of the Post Office SB Manual II. Rule 29 refers to Encashment of Certificates held in joint names. In case of survivor, he can avail the facility of nomination and get the certificate transferred in his name. Rule 50 gives the entire procedure regarding the payment of value of certificate in the name of deceased holders. Rule 50(1) refers to claim to the value of the certificate on the basis of- (a) Nomination '' (b) Legal evidence (c) Without production of legal evidence.

This rule also mentions that ifthe claim exceeds Rs. 20,000/-, the claimant should be advised to obtain a Succession Certificate from a competent Court of Law. Since in the present case, the total value of the certificates, six in number, exceeds Rs. 20,000/- as per rule aforesaid the Postal Authorities directed the claimant to get one. At this stage, it may be observed that calling upon the complainant to obtain Succession Certificate is merely by advise and is not an embargo that without obtaining Succession Certificate the Postal Authorities cannot release the amount. Obtaining Succession Certificate falls in category ''B'' "Legal Evidence" as referred to above. However, the rule aforesaid also provides for releasing the amount of the certificate without production of legal evidence as provided under Clause ''C'' of 50(1) of the rules referred to above. Since in the present case no nominee was mentioned, the Postal Authorities were required to decide as to whether the claimant was entitled to receive the amount of the certificates or not, even if the claimant was not prepared to get a Succession Certificate from the competent Court. Since no such exercise was done, squarely it would amount to deficiency in rendering service.

The procedure of obtaining Succession Certificate from a competent Court results in adjudication of prima facie entitlement of the person in whose favour such a certificate is ordered to be issued. Such an adjudication can also be by the department, a Competent Authority under the rules who is competent to administer oath to the witnesses as mentioned in these rules, as provided under Rule 50(5) of the Rules. If the complainant can get the matter settled from the Civil Court, the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act being in addition to the remedy of suit, there is no bar that FORA established under the Consumer Protection Act cannot decide the matter. As to whether the complainant is legally entitled to the amount of certificates, such adjudication would be final between the parties.

THE question as to whether the complainant Kamal Khosla is the only heir of Kewal Kumar Khosia remains to be decided. On going through the proceedings of the District Forum, it is noticed that Kamal Khosla claimed to be widow of Kewal Kumar Khosia who at the relevant time was entitled to receive the amount of the certificates as survivor as his mother Radha Rani had earlier died. Kamal Khosla as widow of Kewal Kumar Khosla, of course, would be one of the legal heirs and entitled to the entire amount of certificates, if there was no other legal heir of Kewal Kumar Khosla. In the complaint, no details of other legal heirs of Kewal Kumar Khosia were given, however, in the affidavit filed Kamal Khosla which was attested on July 25,1996, in para 2 it was mentioned "that none of the sons of Radha Rani shall claim any amount, I take full responsibility". In para 1, it was stated that Radha Rani had died much before the death of her husband. That being the position, the entire amount was payable to the survivor Kewal Kumar Khosla. It is not the case of the parties that he had left any other legal heir except Smt. Kamal Khosla, his widow. Thus, it is she who is entitled to the amount of certificates on maturity. District Forum has rightly directed payment of the amount of the certificates to her. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal fails and is dismissed. THE order of the District Forum is affirmed. THE appellants would pay cost of litigation of this appeal to the respondent which are assessed at Rs. 1,000/-. Appeal dismissed.