HEAD POST OFFICE SOLAN Vs. PRATAP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is against the order of the learned District Forum, Shimla, Camp at Solan, dated 8.12.2000, whereby the appellants have been directed to refund the maturity amount of Rs.12,000/- of Indira Vikas Patras (I. V. Ps.) which were purchased by respondent No.1/complainant originally for Rs.6,000/-, the awarded amount being the maturity value thereof. In addition, 12% interest per annum on the said amount has been awarded from 19.9.1997 i. e. the date of maturity as well as litigation cost of Rs.500/-.

(2.) The short question for consideration in the present appeal is whether on the loss/misplacement, as alleged by respondent No.1, of the I. V. Ps. , in question the appellants were entitled to insist that the maturity amount aforementioned could only be paid on production of the said I. V. Ps. The learned Forum below has come to the conclusion that the maturity amount can be released to respondent in order to meet the ends of justice as it will not cause any loss or damage to the appellants, rather it will avoid multiplicity of litigation and shall also serve the purpose/object as envisagd under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 . This finding has been recorded on the basis that the respondent can be asked to execute the indemnity bond for the maturity amount so as to safeguard the interests of the appellants. We are in complete agreement with the reasoning and conclusions formed by the learned Forum below in the impugned order.

(3.) In fairness to the learned Counsel for the appellants, he has strongly placed reliance on a decision of the High Court of Delhi in the case of D. R. Abrol V/s. Union of India and Ors. , C. W. P. No.1848/92, decided on 4.9.1992, wherein it has been held that the I. V. P. is like an ordinary currency note and in view of Rule 57 (10) of the Post Office Savings Bank Manual, Vol. II, duplicate I. V. Ps. cannot be issued. That case was decided on its own facts. Moreover, the learned Counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on a decision of the Gujarat High Court as reported in AIR 2002 Gujarat 180. That was also a case relating to I. V. P. certificates and it was held as follows : "a broad meaning is required to be given to the word, 'presenting' the certificates. Many a time, the certificate is lost and in that event, it would be impossible for the party to present the same. In the event of the certificate being lost or stolen, the concerned party may put forward his claim for encashment on the basis of the relevant meterial pertaining to the lost/stolen certificates provided the certificates are not encashed by any other party. Even if the Indira Vikas Patra Certificates are in the nature of bearer cheques, so long as they are not encashed by anybody other than the person who purchased the same and if such person comes forward to encash the same with valid claim with proper materials, it cannot be denied. However, genuineness of such claim is open to scrutiny by the authorities, considering the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, in absence of presentations of Cerficates, the party does not lose right to claim encashment, however, he will have to give all particulars of Certificates, and other relevant circumstances and to satisfy the authorities, provided in the meantime to encashment having been taken place. " He has also placed reliance on a decision of the National Commission reported in I (1998) CPJ 107 (NC) which was in respect of National Saving Scheme, being a Post Office deposit, which also says that rules are only meant for administrative convenience of the Department and cannot act as bar for payment of interest on an account opened by the depositor in ignorance of the said rules. The National Commission agreed with the view taken by this Commission in that case that the opening of second account by the complainant was an irregularity not amounting to contravention of rules. We are of the considered view that the deicision of the Gujarat High Court as well as that of the National Commission referred to above are more to the point in respect of the present case. Moreover, the principles governing the decision of the consumer cases under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are broadly different from those which apply in civil causes other than the consumer complaints. In this process of reasoning, we find no error in the impugned order insofar as the awarding of the maturity amount of Rs.12,000/-, subject to the respondent/complainant executing an indemnity bond in favour of the appellants, legally undertaking to make good the loss, if any, caused to them in future, equivalent to the said maturity amount, is concerned. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we modify the impugned order only to this extent that the rate of 12% interest per annum on the maturity amount shall be with effect from the date of the complaint i. e.29.7.1998 instead of from 19.9.1997. We also uphold the awarding of litigation cost of Rs.500/-. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Appeal disposed of.