The Post Master, Post Office Krishna Nagar vs SHAHNAZ KHAN

RIEF facts of this case which are relevant for its disposal are that the complainant/respondent had purchased 8 Indira Vikas Patras with maturity value of 5,000/ - each on 24.07.1998 and the maturity date thereof was 24.01.2004.

BTHE details of these IVPs are as under: - -

Unfortunately for the complainant, 7 of these IVPs were lost leaving only one such IVP bearing No. 871039 which remained with the complainant. The complainant got this document encashed on its maturity and regarding the 7 lost instruments, she informed the OP on 19.02.2004 requesting it not to make payment of these 7 lost IVPs. The complainant also lodged complaint with the local police. Vide legal notice dated 10.02.2006, she requested the OP to make payment of lost instruments to her but the OP, who is petitioner herein, did not respond. Treating OP''s refusal to make payment, as a deficiency in service, the complainant approached the District Forum by filing a consumer complaint praying for directions to OP to make payment of the lost instruments, interest @ 18% from 24.01.2004 along with cost of litigation and compensation.

NOTICE was issued to the OP, who appeared and filed its reply stating therein that the amount is not payable to the complainant in view of the statutory rules. It was contended that the request of the complainant was rejected on the ground that these IVPs are like currency note and cannot be reissued nor can these be replaced by duplicate Patras. It was further contended by the OP that it is liable to make payment on production of the Patra but in the present case, the complainant had lost the 7 IVPs and as such, the OP is not liable for the carelessness and negligence of the complainant for which she herself was to be blamed. Thus, denying any deficiency on its part, the OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

BOTH the parties filed evidence by way of affidavit and after hearing their arguments, the District Forum vide its order dated 22.05.2006 allowed the complaint by issuing following directions to the OP/petitioner: - - "i) to make payment of seven Indira Vikas Patras i.e. 871036 to 871038 vide registration No. 37223 and 871044 to 47 vide registration 37225 maturity date 24.01.2004 to the complainant on furnishing indemnity bond as well as surety bond by a local permanent resident of Delhi.

ii) OP will make the payment of interest after the maturity till the date of payment as per its rules to the complainant."

Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the petitioner/OP filed an appeal bearing No. A -604/06 against this order before the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The petitioner/OP filed its appeal mainly on the strength of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Central Govt. of India and Others v. Krishnaji Parvetesh Kulkarni, bearing Appeal (civil) 4819 of 2000, decided on 05.04.2006, wherein it was held that an IVP is akin to an ordinary currency note as it bears no name of the holder and since a lost currency note cannot be replaced, similarly the question of replacing a lost IVP does not arise. In this context, Rule 7(2) of Indira Vikas Patra Rules, 1986 was referred to and was relied upon, which reads thus: - - "7(2): A certificate lost, stolen, mutilated, defaced or destroyed beyond recognition, will not be replaced by any Post Office."

AFTER examining the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Krishnaji Parvestesh Kulkarni''s case (Supra) and hearing the parties, the State Commission by its order dated 23.02.2007 partly allowed the appeal of the petitioner by setting aside the order of the District Forum regarding payment of interest after the date of maturity and confirmed the rest of the order of the District Forum.

NOT satisfied with the partial relief granted by the State Commission, the petitioner/OP has filed the present revision petition praying for dismissal of the complaint of the respondent. We have heard Government Counsel Shri M. Dutta appearing for the petitioner along with Ms. Anupama Bansal and Shri Manish, Advocates and Senior Advocate Shri K.E. Moses with Shri S.H. Khan, Advocate for the respondent.

LEARNED counsel for petitioner would assail the impugned order mainly on the ground of the ratio laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishnaji Parvetesh Kulkarni (Supra) and submitted that the State Commission has failed to appreciate the ratio laid down by the Apex Court and hence, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. While acknowledging that the IVPs in question are still undischarged and "loss" remark has been given in the record to avoid fraudulent payment. Referring to the provisions of Rule 7(2) and also the fact that an IVP is akin to an ordinary currency note as it bears no name of the holder thereof, he submitted that since a lost currency note cannot be replaced, similarly the question of replacing of a lost IVP does not arise and unless the IVP is presented for payment, it is not possible for the petitioner to make any payment against the 7 IVPs in question which are reported to have been lost. Thus, keeping in view the specific rule position and the judgment of the Apex Court in Krishnaji Parvetesh Kulkarni''s case (Supra), learned counsel submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and revision petition be allowed.

ON the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order which according to him is fair and just keeping in view the fact that the IVPs in question have admittedly not been encashed and as such, the petitioner should have no objection in releasing the payment against them in terms of the impugned order. He however clarified with reference to a suggestion from petitioner''s counsel that the respondent/complainant would not be prepared to give indemnity bond and wait for further intimation from the petitioner till the actual presentation of the original instruments. We have carefully considered the rival contentions.

WE may note that vide its order dated 14.07.2009 passed in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. Ajay Kumar Tatiya (R.P. No. 685 of 2009), this Commission has dismissed the revision petition filed by the Union of India challenging the order of the State Commission upholding the order of the District Forum accepting the complaint on the ground that the point under consideration in the case of in Krishnaji Parvetesh Kulkarni (Supra) was different. In this context, it may be appropriate to reproduce the observations of this Commission in Ajay Kumar Tatiaya''s case in which the National Commission while dismissing the revision petition of the Union of India and upholding the order of the State Commission observed thus: - - "Counsel for the petitioner, relying upon a judgement of the Supreme Court in Central Government of India & Ors. v. Krishnaji Parvetesh Kulkarni - : (2006)4 SCC 275 contends that an IVP is akin to an ordinary currency note. It bears no name of the holder. Just as a lost currency note cannot be replaced, the question of replacing a lost IVP does not arise. Rule 7(2) of the Indira Vikas Patra Rules, 1986 makes the position clear that the duplicates of IVPs cannot be issued.

Point in the said case was different. We respectfully agree with the view taken by the Supreme Court that duplicate IVPs cannot be issued but the maturity value can be ordered to be paid subject to issuance of the Indemnity Bond. If any person comes forward claiming the maturity amount by producing the original IVPs, then the petitioner would have the right to recover the same from the respondent on the basis of the Indemnity Bond given by him. In this process, no loss would be caused to the petitioner. Petitioner cannot be allowed to enrich itself at the cost of the poor investor, specially when the interest of the petitioner is being fully protected. Dismissed."

WE are of the considered view that the judgment of this Commission in the case of Ajay Kumar Tatia (supra) is fully attracted to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Thus we find that the view taken by the District Forum and the State Commission is in line with the view taken by this Commission in the case of Ajay Kumar Tatia (supra). We also agree with the State Commission that interest cannot be paid to the complainant from the date of maturity as claimed by her keeping in view her contributory negligence in the matter. We, therefore, uphold the impugned order and dismiss the revision petition with no order as to costs.