RAM NATH MATHURIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order of State Commission allowing the appeal, setting aside the order of the District Forum allowing the complaint.

(2.) Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner had invested Rs. 50,000/- in Indira Vikas Patra (I.V.P.) in Lodi Road Post Office, New Delhi in 1986 for which he was issued provisional receipts. These receipts were stolen in December, 1986 itself for which an F.I.R. was lodged and the respondent Post Master was also informed. In January, 1987, the petitioner's case is that he was neither delivered India Vikas Patra (what he had lost was the receipt of I.V.P.) nor the amount was paid to him on maturity in December, 1991. In these circumstances, the petitioner approached the District Forum who after hearing both the parties, directed the respondent to pay the IVP's amount against indemnity as these are lying in safe custody and nobody has come to claim for all these years. On the respondent filing an appeal, the State Commission allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum.

(3.) It is argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that it is a fact that the provisional receipts were issued, but they were lost, matter was reported to the police and to the respondent authorities way back in December, 1986. Petitioner has been corresponding with the respondent for issue of IVP, which has not been done, he has also been denied encashment on maturity. It is admitted position that I.V.Ps. are lying in safe custody, they matured in December, 1991, nobody has come to claim them during the last 11 years. For a small rectifiable error i.e. loss of receipts, money cannot be denied to them. This non-payment amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. The order of the State Commission needs to be set aside.