UNION OF INDIA vs MANOJ KUMAR PURANMAL PALDIWALA

THIS Revision Petition has been filed against the Order dated 10th July, 1995 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (For short State Commission) in Appeal Case No. 85 of 1995 by which appeal was partly allowed to the extent of award of compensatory expenses.

THE facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The present Respondent, Manoj Kumar Puranmal Paldiwala purchased Six Year National Saving Certificates worth Rs. 5,000/- on 27.6.1987 from the Post Office. On the Certificates it was printed that on expiry of six years, the purchaser will get Rs. 10,075/-. However, on maturity the Post Office paid to him Rs. 9,505/- i.e. 1% less amount of interest. It may be mentioned here that vide letter dated 6th April, 1987 from Ministry of Communication, Department of Posts to all heads of Postal Circles it was intimated that vide Gazette Notification dated 1.4.1987 the rate of interest on the National Saving Certificate was reduced by 1%. The claim of the Complainant is based on the fact that the Post Office is bound to pay the amount which is printed on the saving certificates as he was never informed that the rate of interest has been reduced by 1%. Assuch he claimed for the short payment i.e. Rs. 570/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. The District Forum observed that the letter issued by the Ministry of Communication, Department of Post has no significance in the eye of law and further that the Opposite Party did not write on the certificates issued to the Complainant that rate of interest has been reduced by 1% as per the instructions of Government of India nor such instructions were communicated to the Complainant later on and, therefore, the said instructions were not binding on the Complainant. The District Forum also held that it was the duty of the Post Office to insert corrections in the National Saving Certificates about the amount payable and as the Post Office has failed to do the needful it has committed negligence in the service. The District Forum awarded Rs. 570/- with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of presentation of the Certificates i.e. 25.9.1993. The District Forum also awarded Rs. 200/- as compensatory expenses plus Rs. 200/- as cost.

FEELING aggrieved the Department, Petitioner herein, filed an appeal before the State Commission. As stated above the State Commission allowed the appeal partly to the extent of award of compensatory expenses of Rs. 200/- which was set aside.

STILL not being satisfied the present Petitioner filed this Revision Petition. None appeared for the Respondent on the date of hearing. After hearing the learned counsel for the Petitioner and going through the record, we are of the opinion that this Revision Petition is liable to be accepted. It appears that District Forum as well as the State Commission had held Post Office negligent in the discharge of their duty on the ground that it has given effect to the letter referred to above by not making necessary endorsement on the National Saving Certificates issued on or after 1.4.1987. The relevant part of that letter reads as follows :- "The maturity value of NSCs VI issue purchased after 1.4.1987 has been reduced. The amount inclusive of interest payable on encashment of a certificate at any time after the expiry of its maturity period shall be Rs. 190.10 for a denomination of Rs. 100/- and at a proportionate rate for any other denominations. There will be corresponding changes in the interest Table below rule 19 as shown in the Gazette Notification. The NSCs VI issue, issued from the Post Offices on or after 1.4.1987 will be issued after entries are made in it in manuscript or by means of rubber stamps as "Maturity value revised". See notification CSR No. 364 (E) dated 1.4.1987". Further supply of NSCs by the Head Office to the Post Offices under endorsement on the certificate have been made." In fact by that letter, the Ministry of Communication, Department of Posts has explained the net effect of the notification issued on 1st April, 1987. According to the said letter the Post Offices issuing National Saving Certificates were directed to make entries in it either in manuscript or by means of rubber stamp as "Maturity Value Revised." However, in the present case due to inadvertence on the part of the clerical staff of the Post Office old rate of maturity value, which was printed on the certificates was not corrected. We are of the opinion that the District Forum and the State Commission have given undue importance to the inadvertent mistake committed by the clerical staff of the concerned Post Office. This case is fully covered by the order of the Supreme Court passed in SLP (C) No. 38 of 1995 in case the Postmaster Dargamitta H. P. O. Nellore v. Ms. Raja Prameelamma. That case also relates to the National Saving Certificates issued on 28th April, 1987. The necessary endorsement had not been made on the National Saving Certificates. The Supreme Court in that case upheld the dissenting view of one learned Member of this Commission. The reasoning of the dissenting Member was as under :- "It is evident from the definition of the terms "deficiency" that it must be a fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained under a law or has been undertaken to be performed in pursuance of a contract. In fact of the notification issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India on 1.4.1987 i.e. prior to the date of issue of the certificates, the erroneous indication of a higher rate of interest and higher maturity value cannot be deemed to be a deficiency in service with reference to the law governing the sale of National Saving Certificates. As regards the contract, no doubt the sale of National Savings Certificates with the terms and conditions embodied thereon constitutes a contract between the Government of India as seller and the holders of the National Saving 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 in Section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act. While agreeing with the reasoning and conclusion reached by the dissenting Member the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the orders of the District Forum, State Commission and this Commission and dismissed the complaint. The above order of the Supreme Court fully covers the present case. Hence, we hold that the State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction illegally by upholding the order of the District Forum which was contrary to the terms notified by the Government of India. Therefore, we accept the present Revision Petition and set aside the orders of the District Forum and the State Commission and the complaint is dismissed.