Union of India vs Jog Raj

THE Posts and Telegraph Department of the Government of India has come up in appeal through the Senior Post Master General, Post Offices, Ambala Cantt. against the order dated 3.7.1997 passed by the learned District Consumer Forum, Ambala, whereby the complaint of Jog Raj claiming replacement of the Indira Vikas Patras (for short ''the IVPs'') has been allowed as the original IVPs had got mutilated. THE complainant approached the learned District Forum, Ambala, with the grievance that he had purchased IVPs of the value of Rs. 13,000/- on 22.2.1990 from the Post Office, Sadar Bazar, Ambala Cantt. as detailed below : Sr. No. IVP No. Date of issue Regd. No. Denomination Maturity value 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 18-C-479527 18-C-479528 18-C-479529 18-C-479530 18-C-479531 937168 22.2.1990 22.2.1990 22.2.1990 22.2.1990 22.2.1990 22.2.1990 2260 2260 2260 2260 2260 4407 2500/- 2500/- 2500/- 2500/- 2500/- 500/- 5000/- 5000/- 5000/- 5000/- 5000/- 1000/- Total 13000/- 26000/-

THE aforesaid IVPs were damaged by whiteants though they were kept in safe custody in an Almirah. THE complainant gathered these pieces and affixed them on plain papers and wrote down their numbers from his diary in which he had kept the record/particulars of these IVPs. With these mutilated IVPs, the complainant approached the concerned Postal Authorities for their replacement by issuing the duplicate ones. Since the Postal Authorities refused to replace these damaged/mutilated IVPs - being beyond recognition - the complainant approached the learned District Forum for necessary relief. During the trial of the complaint, the complainant produced voluminous documentary record in support of his claim to prove that the IVPs had been purchased by him from the Sadar Bazar Post Office, Ambala Cantt. on 22.2.1990 valuing Rs.13,000/- and these were six in number with the denominations as detailed above with the maturity value printed thereon totalling to Rs. 26,000/-. It was also stated that if there was still some doubt with regard to the genuineness of the claim, the complainant was willing to execute an indemnity bond to safeguard the interests of the Post Office. Despite that, the Postal Authorities did not concede the claim and ultimately the learned District Forum allowed the complaint by issuing the following direction : "(i) To issue the duplicate Indira Vikas Patras in place of disputed mutilated Indira Vikas Patras. (ii) To pay the maturity amount indicated on each Indira Vikas Patra with interest @ 18% p.a. w.e.f. 27.5.1995 by getting indemnity bond from the complainant. (iii) To pay Rs. 200/- by way of costs of the proceedings."

In the appeal before us, Mr. G.C. Babbar, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India/Postal Authorities, has vehemently contended that once the Postal Authorities have traken a bona fide decision that the IVPs had been damaged beyond recognition and according to Rule 7 of the Indira Vikas Patra Rules, 1986, the same cannot be replaced, the learned District Forum had no jurisdiction under law to direct the replacement thereof. It is further contended that firstly the complainant was not a consumer as by purchasing the IVPs he did not become a consumer and as such no consumer dispute had arisen for the adjudication of the learned District Forum. In support of his submission, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon''ble National Commission reported as I (1994) CPJ 207. The learned Counsel further advanced argument, by vigorously pleading that in terms the order passed by the learned District Forum amounts to declaring the rules of the Central Government illegal, which the learned Forum had no jurisdiction in view of the decisions reported as III (1992) CPJ 24 (NC), and III (1992) CPJ (Rajasthan) 586. Learned Counsel also challenges the direction issued by the learned District Forum with regard to the payment of interest on the maturity value of the IVPs by placing reliance on I (1996) CPJ (Delhi) 343. On the other hand, Mr. D.K. Mittal, learned Counsel for the complainant-respondent, has drawn our attention to Rule 7 ibid issued by the Central Government under Section 12 of the Government Savings Certificates Act, 1959 (Parliament Act 46 of 1959). According to this rule, the replacement of mutilated certificates by issuing duplicate ones is the duty of the Postal Authorities provided the mutilation is not beyond recognition. The learned Counsel has further laid emphasis on the fact that in para 1 of the written statement filed by the appellant, it has been admitted by them in clear and unambiguous terms that the complainant had in fact purchased the IVPs in Question on 22.2.1990 from the Sadar Bazar Post Office, Ambala Cantt. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel, the question of the appellant''s repudiating the claim on the plea of lack of recognition of these IVPs did not arise.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and have gone through the record minutely. WE have also seen the entries made by the complainant in his account-books (Bahi-Khata) with the numbers of the IVPs, their denominations and the date of purchase, i.e. 22.2.1990, from the Sadar Bazar Post Office, Ambala Cantt. duly mentioned therein. After hearing the learned Counsel, we are of the considered view that the stand taken by the Postal authorities is wholly non-existent, without any basis, unfair and arbitrary. Rule 7 ibid reads as under : "7. Replacement of certificate-(1) If a certificate is mutilated or defaced, the bearer is entitled for replacement from the Post Office of issue on payment ''f fee of rupee one. (2) A certificate lost, stolen, mutilated, defaced or destroyed beyond recognition will not be replaced by any Post Office."

According to this rule, only that certificate is not to be replaced by the Post Office which has been mutilated, defaced or destroyed beyond recognition. In the present case, it is amply established on record that the certificates have not been mutilated beyond recognition. Rather, the seal and the name of the Post Office which issued these certificates, the date of issue, their denominations and their numbers are also clearly decipherable. Thus, there is no doubt with regard to their recognition. Moreover, all these material particulars, as detailed in para 1 of the complaint as reproduced above, have already been admitted by the Postal Authorities by filing their written statement. As such, the question of declaring any rules illegal or the complainant being or not being a consumer, or the question of mutilation beyond recognition or otherwise, do not arise. So far as the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant with regard to the payment of interest is concerned, it has no basis as the interest is to be paid to the complainant only with effect from the date of maturity of the IVPs till the actual payment is made and not for any period earlier thereto; because from the date of purchase of these certificates till the date of their maturity the interest is already included in the maturity amount payable to the complainant. In these circumstances, the objections raised by the Postal Authorities are wholly hyper-technical and clearly amount to deficiency in service on their part. In such like cases, exemplary costs should have been awarded against the Postal Authorities but we are satisfied that ends of justice stand adequately met with the relief already granted by the learned District Forum. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed with costs which are quantified at Rs. 2,000/-. Appeal dismissed with costs.