SUB POST MASTER vs SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD

-HEARD learned Advocate Mr. C. A. Modi for Mr. S. C. Shah learned Advocate for the appellants and Mr. D. M. Soni learned Advocate for the respondent.

THIS appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the order dated 20. 6. 2006 rendered in Complaint No. 173/2005 by the learned Panchmahal District Consumer Disputes Redressl Forum at Godhra allowing the complaint directing the opponents to pay Rs. 20,300 with 9% interest from the date of maturity, within 30 days from the date of the order. The facts giving rise to the present appeal shortly stated are that the complainant (respondent) filed the complaint stating that the complainant -Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited had purchased two National Saving Certificates on 21. 11. 1996 and 30. 10. 1998 for Rs. 10,000 each for a period of six years. The said certificates were issued in the name of the complainant Industry bearing No. 6ns/07ee106185 and No. MS/2jee851534. Both the six years Saving Certificates were given to the Superintendent of Prohibition and Excise Department, Godhra by way of security against loan; that the maturity amount of each of the certificate was to be Rs. 20,150 which is required to be paid to the holder of the certificate under the scheme and that the complainant approached the opponent for getting the maturity amount of these two saving certificates on the date of maturity, but the opponents only gave the principal amount i. e. Rs. 10,000 for each of the certificates, in all Rs. 20,000. This amount has been accepted by the complainant under protest. Complainant in the complaint prayed for interest on the amount of the saving certificate @ Rs. 10,150 from 4. 5. 2005 till the realization of the amount and also prayed for compensation for mental and physical harassment with cost of the complaint.

The opponents filed reply to the complaint vide Ex-7 denying the allegations in the complaint stating that the complainant was issued National Savings Certificates VIII series from Civil Lines, Godhra for Rs. 10,000 on 21. 11. 1996 and for Rs 10,000 on 30. 10. 1998, but both the Saving Certificates were issued in breach of the National Saving Certificates Rules; that from 1. 4. 1995 onwards National Saving Certificates could not have been issued in the name of the Company or the Partnership Firm as per the note in para -4 of Import O and M No. 9 para-28 of the Post Office Small Saving Scheme and therefore National Saving Certificate VIIIth Series could not be issued in breach of the above rules. Hence the complainant was informed that he would be paid the principal amount of two saving certificates i. e. Rs. 20,000 and the said amount has been paid on 5. 4. 2005 to the complainant. For the aforesaid reasons the complainant was only paid the principal amount of both the saving certificates and not any interest thereon.

THE learned District Forum considering the contentions of the parties and the material on record passed the order as aforestated which is challenged in the present appeal. We have heard the submissions advanced by the learned Advocates appearing for the parties. It is suggested from the submissions of the learned Advocates and also from the impugned order that the only question arises in the present appeal shortly stated is whether the learned District Forum could have awarded any interest on the amount of National Saving Certificates or not.

MR. C. A. Modi learned advocate for Mr. S. C. Shah learned Advocate for the appellant has relied on the decision in the case of Post Master, Dargamitta H. P. O. Nellore v. Raja Prameelamma (Ms), reported in (1998) 9 Supreme Court Cases P-706 and contended that the contract with the complainant being void contrary to the Rules of the opponent is no contract in eye of law binding to the opponent and therefore the complainant (respondent) would not be entitled to the relief. In the case of Post Master Dargamitta (supra) it has been observed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court that "as regards the contract, no doubt the sale of National Saving Certificates with the terms and conditions embodied thereon constitutes a contract between the Government of India as seller and the holders of the National Savings Certificates. But as this contract was contrary to the terms notified by the Government of India and this was due to inadvertence of the staff, in my opinion it does not become a contract binding the Government of India being unlawful and void. As such this is not a case of deficiency in service either in terms of the law or in terms of the contract as defined under Section 2 (l) (g) of the Consumer Protection Act, J986 ". Mr. Modi for Mr. S. C. Shah learned Advocate for the appellant has also relied on the decision in the case of Harihar Prasad Mangal Prasad Pandya v. Superintendent of Post Offices; reported in (2003) 5 CLD 735 (SCDRC-GUJ.), wherein this State Commission has taken the view that in case of higher rate of interest mentioned on National Saving Certificate due to inadvertence of clerical staff of the opponent Postal Department the same would not be deficiency in service and the Postal Department is entitled to set-off/deduction of amount of overpayment while effecting repayment of deposit

MR. D. M. Soni learned Advocate tor the respondent (complainant) has submitted that the interest as awarded by the learned District Forum in the impugned order should be paid as it is the opponent (appellant) who has issued the National Saving Certificate for which the complainant should not be made to suffer. Mr. Soni has also invited our attention to Rule 9 of N. S. Cs. (VIII-Issue) Rules which deals with discontinuance of investment in N. S. Cs. (VIII-Issue) to Institutions with effect from 1. 4. 1995. It is submitted by Mr. Soni that since Rule 9 provides for suitable action against the erring officers the interest should be paid on the N. S. Cs. in question to the complainant.

IN our opinion Rule 9 of N. S. Cs. (VIII-issue) Rules cannot be taken as aid by the complainant since that would be a matter between the Postal Department and the concerned employee of the department. As far as the complainant is concerned the issue of two National Saving Certificates by the present appellant is in violation of the rules since the N. S. Cs. (VIII-Issue) cannot be issued to a partnership firm or a company and this being no contract in eye of law is not binding to the Government of India. Since the issuance of National Saving Certificates to the complainant is due to inadvertence of the clerical staff of the Postal Department, no advantage can be taken by anybody of inadvertent mistake on the part of the employee of the Postal Authority. As there is no contract binding to the Government of India and the contract being unlawful and void as stated by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Post Master Dargamitta (supra) the complainant (respondent) cannot be said to be entitled to the interest and the only entitlement would be the amount of the saving certificates i. e. Rs. 10,000 each, in all Rs. 20,000 which amount admittedly has already been paid to the complainant. In view of the above in our opinion the learned Panchmahal District Forum at Godhra has erred in allowing the complaint and passing the order as reproduced above and therefore the present appeal deserves to be allowed and the order dated 20. 6. 2007 in Complaint No. 173/2005 passed by the learned Panchmahal District Forum also needs to be set aside.

We, therefore, pass the following order order the appeal is allowed. The order directing the opponents to pay Rs. 20,300 with 9% interest from the date of the complaint, passed in Complaint No. 173/2005 by the learned Panchmahal District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Godhra is set aside and consequently the aforesaid complaint stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost in the appeal. Appeal allowed.