UNION OF INDIA Vs. DEVENDRA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Union of India (Department of Postal Services) is the petitioner in this revision petition. They are assailing the order dated 15th of February, 2006 of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (State Commission for short ). The State Commission in its order has set aside the District Forums order of dismissal of the complaint filed by the respondent and, while allowing the appeal of the complainant, directed the petitioner to pay Rs.47,441.50 together with interest @ 6% per annum from 31st May, 1995 till the date of realization on production of original counterfoils of the Indian Postal Orders (IPOs) purchased.

(2.) Since the challenge in this revision petition is to the order of reversal of the findings of the District Forum by the State Commission, it would be necessary to recapitulate the facts of the case. For easy understanding, we will continue to refer the parties as the complainant (respondent herein) and opposite party (petitioner herein), as arrayed before the District Forum.

(3.) The complainant, in order to participate in a tender for a contract, had purchased 454 IPOs on 5th of April, 1999, which, according to him, were worth Rs.47,441.50 payable to the President, Government of India, Indian Railway Works. The IPOs were handed over by him to a person who claimed himself to be N. V. Katkar, Dy. Engineer, Survey of India ostensibly to garner a contract floated by the Railways for him. Soon, however, the complainant discovered that said N. V. Katkar had taken the IPOs from him by misrepresentation and in order to prevent their discharge, he gave an application on the 15th of April, 1999 to the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Chandrapur, requesting him to issue order to stop payment and also to give wide publicity to the matter. Subsequently, on 31st of May, 1999 a request was made by the complainant for payment of the value of the postal orders stating that he was prepared to produce the counterfoils of all the IPOs, if required. Since there was no favourable response, he gave a notice on the 11th of August, 1999 calling upon the petitioner/opposite party to make the payment of Rs.47,441.50 with 24% interest per annum from the date of purchase of the IPOs. He was thereafter forced to file a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chandrapur (District Forum for short ). The complaint was resisted by the petitioner/opposite party. In their written reply, while they admitted the purchase of 454 IPOs on 5th of April, 1999, they submitted that the total value of the IPOs was Rs.45,230/- and not Rs.47,441.50 as claimed by the complainant. They further admitted that the complainant had given an application on the 15th of April, 1999 informing therein that he had been deceived by an imposter to hand over the IPOs and requested to stop the payment of IPOs. Later, he also made a request for the refund of the value of the IPOs on 31st of May, 1999 but the complainant was explained vide letter dated 20th of September, 2000 that the validity of IPOs is for two years from the date of issue and purchaser cannot demand refund of the amount in the absence of original IPOs as anybody can present the IPOs within the period of two years and demand its discharge/payment on production of original IPOs. The District Forum, on consideration of the evidence placed before it by both the sides, dismissed the complaint holding that since the period of two years has not expired from the date of issue of the IPOs, the complaint was pre-mature. The complainant thereafter filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission, referring to Rule 253 of the Post Office Guide (Part-I), which provided that a purchaser of an IPO can obtain repayment of its value on presenting the IPO and the counterfoil at the Post Office from which the IPO was purchased, entered into a detailed discussion on the use of the word and and held that at times the word and could be read as or. The State Commission referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shamrao Vs. District Magistrate, Thana, 1952 AIR(SC) 324, in which it has been held that It is the duty of Courts to give effect to the meaning of an Act when the meaning can be fairly gathered from the words used, that is to say, if one construction will lead to an absurdity while another will give effect to what common sense will show was obviously intended, the construction which would defeat the ends of the Act must be rejected even if the same words used in the same section, and even the same sentence, have to be construed differently. Indeed, the law goes so far as to require the Courts sometimes even to modify the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words if by doing so absurdity and inconsistency can be avoided. The State Commission was, therefore, of the view that since the provision to obtain repayment stated on presenting the order and the counterfoil; and the counterfoils being in a position for being presented, directed the petitioner/opposite party to honour the claim on production of original counterfoils.