POST MASTER Vs. BANWARI LAL RAJINDER PRASHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of the above mentioned 54 appeals as common questions of law and facts are involved in these appeals.

(2.) The first 14 appeals bearing Nos. 389 of 2006 to 402 of 2006 relate to Kisan Vikas Patras purchased by the complainants while the remaining 40 appeals bearing Nos. 403 of 2006 to 421 of 2006 and 576 of 2006 to 596 of 2006 relate to the National Saving Certificates purchased by the complainants in these appeals. Therefore, for adjudication of first 14 appeals mentioned at Sr. Nos. 1 to 14, the facts have been taken of First Appeal No. 389 of 2006 titled Post Master New Anaj Mandi, Hisar Vs. M/s. Banwari Lal Rajinder Parshad . M/s. Banwari Lal Rajinder Parshad through its Proprietor Shri Banwari Lal had purchased KVP No. 55AA-016004 dated 19.8.1997 for Rs. 1,000 from the Post Master, New Anaj Mandi, Hisar-opposite party No. l. On completion of maturity period the same was encashed on 16.6.2003 but no interest was paid on the said amount on the plea taken by the appellant-opposite parties that the said Kisan Vikas Patras had been issued to the complainant in contravention of Rule 6 of the Kisan Vikas Patras Rules, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules 1988) read with Rule 13 of the Post Office Savings Certificate Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1960). The complainant thereafter approached the opposite party No. 2 through its Superintendent and pressed for the payment of the interest amount for the period the above stated amount remained deposited with the opposite party No. 1 but no action was taken by the opposite parties in this regard. Forced by these circumstances, the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum seeking directions against the opposite parties to pay the accrued interest on the sum of Rs. 1,000 for the period it remained deposited with them and also to pay future interest on the said amount from the date of encashment till realisation @ 12% per annum. In addition Rs. 5,000 were claimed as litigation expenses.

(3.) On notice, the opposite parties filed a detailed written statement. It was pleaded by them that Kisan Vikas Patras bearing No. 55AA-016004 for Rs. 1,000 was issued under Registration No. 666 dated 19.8.1997 by the opposite party No. l to the complainant, but factually the complainant was ineligible to purchase the said Kisan Vikas Patras because in terms of Rule 6 of Rules 1988 and Rule 10 of Rules 1960, that could not have been issued to the complainant firm and for that reason the purchase made was irregular and it has no liability to pay any interest on the deposited amount. Accordingly, it was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal. The District Forum on scrutiny of the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record accepted the complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay interest @ 9% per annum over the deposited amount of Rs. 1,000 of Kisan Vikas Patras w.e.f. 16.6.2003 till the date of payment. The opposite parties were also directed to pay Rs. 500 as litigation expenses to the complainant. Similar controversy has been raised in other 13 above referred appeals mentioned at Sr. Nos. 2 to 14.