SUB-POST MASTER vs E.G.SULOCHANA

AGGRIEVED by the order of the District Forum, Wayanad passed in O.P. No. 153/1998 dated 9.2.2000, whereby the opposite parties/appellants herein were directed to pay the maturity value of four ''Indira Vikas Patras'' (IVPs) purchased by the complainant, this appeal has been preferred by the opposite parties.

THE facts leading to the filing of this appeal briefly stated are as follows : Complainant purchased four Indira Vikas Patras worth Rs. 20,000/- on 23.9.1989; that the date of maturity was 23.9.1994; that the said Indira Vikas Patras were stolen, thus complaint was filed before the Kambolakkad Police on 23.11.1993, and that the same was reported to first opposite party. Police was not able to hook the culprit. Complainant reported the matter to 1st and 2nd opposite parties and claimed repayment of the maturity amount. Opposite Parties refused to make repayment. Consequently she filed the complaint before District Forum claiming maturity amount with interest and compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. Opposite Parties in their joint written version filed admitted that four Indira Vikas Patras were issued from Paramaram Post Office on 23.9.1989 and no one encashed the same till the date of filing complaint. They admitted that the complainant has informed them of the loss of IVPs on 27.11.1993. They contended that there is no deficiency in service on their part. As per Rules, they are liable to pay the maturity amount only on production of IVP''s. There is no provision for replacement of a lost certificate and since the above IVPs have been lost from the custody of the complainant the opposite parties are in no way responsible for the alleged loss or mental agony. Complaint entails dismissal.

The District Forum after considering the materials on record reached a conclusion that opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the maturity amount of the IVPs to the complainant.

AGGRIEVED by the impugned order the appellants/opposite parties have come in appeal challenging the correctness of the order of the District Forum. We have heard the Agent appearing for the appellants and the Counsel for the respondent. The Agent on behalf of appellants submitted that complaint filed is barred by limitation on the ground that complaint was filed after three years of arising of cause of action. According to Agent cause of action arose on 23.9.1994 (the date of maturity) and as the complaint was filed only on 22.6.1998 the Forum below should have dismissed the complaint holding that it was barred by limitation.

LET us first deal with the contention that the claim is barred by limitation. It is to be pointed out at the outset that no such contention was raised before the District Forum and such a contention has been urged before us for the first time while hearing the appeal. On perusal of the entire records, we are of the view that the contention based on limitation is unsustainable and the reason for holding so is that Indira Vikas Patra Rules, 1986 do not specify any date for claiming the amounts. Rule 8 only says that a certificate "may be encashed at any time after the expiry of five years from the date of issue". No outer time limit is fixed. Further in the version filed, opposite parties in no uncertain terms stated that "Also the opposite parties have no objection for making payment of the maturity value as and when IVPs are presented for payment at the post office of issue". Absence of any specific provision fixing outer time limit for claiming the amount and also the willingness expressed by the appellants to make payment covered by the Indira Vikas Patra on production of them also render unacceptable the contention that the complaint is barred by limitation. The ''cause'' did not exhaust at a particular date and the ''cause'' is still pending. The relevant rules that are to be considered for deciding the correctness or otherwise of the impugned order are Rules 7 and 8. Rule 7(1) provides for replacement of mutilated or decayed certificates. Whereas Clause (2) states that a certificate lost, stolen mutilated, decayed or destroyed beyond recognition will not be replaced. Rule 8 provides that it may be encashed at any time after the expiry of the period of five years from the date of issuing by presenting it before the post office of issue. From a plain reading of the aforesaid rules it is manifestly clear that the complainant is not entitled for replacement of the lost certificate and the complainant is not entitled to encash the Indira Vikas Patras without presenting them before the post office of issue.

PLACING reliance on Rules 7 and 8 appellants contended vehemently that the above rules stand in the way of complainant to claim any relief.

LEARNED Counsel for the respondent relying on Rule 11 (that rule confers "Power to relax") contended that in a fit case Central Government is empowered to relax the requirements of Rules 7 and 8. Before proceeding further Rule 11 is to be extracted here : "When the Central Government is satisfied that operation of any of the provisions in these rules causes undue hardship to the holder of a certificate, it may, by order for reasons to be recorded in writing, relax the requirements of that provision in a manner not inconsistent with the provision of the Act."

(Emphasis supplied) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent rightly argued that immediately on receipt of letter intimating loss of certificate the opposite parties who are well aware of Rule 11 should have brought to the notice of Central Government the hardship of the complainant or should have informed the complainant about the remedy available instead of rejecting the claim outright insisting for performance of an impossible condition like production of certificates which were stolen. Criticising such an attitude by a public body, Hon''ble National Commission observed in Ram Nath Mathurai v. Union of India, III (2002) CPJ 22 (NC) "to tell him nothing can be done is rendering no service by a public body in this case, the Government". In that case National Commission considered the question whether refusal to refund the amount covered by Indira Vikas Patra on the ground of loss of receipt (Not IVP) was justified or not. Counsel argued with much force that nowhere it is provided in Rule 11 that only on production of the certificate, the encashment could be allowed. Rule 11 providing for relaxation, subject to the satisfaction of the Central Government in case of hardship to the holder of a certificate embolden us to take a view that production of certificate at the time of encashment may not be mandatory and it is only the procedure to be followed in ordinary situations. (We are not finally deciding the question as to whether Rule 8 is mandatory or not and we are aware that Central Government is conferred with power to relax the requirements of provisions in a manner not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act). Indira Vikas Patra Rules 7 and 8 are promulgated mainly to prevent fraudulent encashment of lost certificate and these rules do not create a hurdle in the way of appellants. We may also point out here that the Agent appearing for appellants submitted before us that the appellants are ready to pay the maturity value of stolen Indira Vikas Patras provided indemnity bond is executed by the respondent.

To prevent fraudulent encashment of the Indira Vikas Patras direction given by the Forum below to make payment without imposing any condition is to be interfered with. Appellants/opposite parties are, therefore, directed to make payment of the maturity value of the 4 IVPs to the complainant/respondent on executing an indemnity bond for the sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. twenty thosand) to indemnify any other person who might be found lawful owner of the Indira Vikas Patras in question.

FOR the reasons stated above this appeal is partly allowed. The order of the District FORum is modified and the appellants are directed to pay the maturity value of the four Indira Vikas Patras on furnishing an indemnity bond for Rs. 20,000/- by the complainant/respondent. We order further that the payment is to be made to the complainant/respondent within one month from the date of execution of the bond. In the circumstances of the case, parties are directed to suffer their respective costs throughout. Appeal partly allowed.