SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES Vs. KAMAL KHOSLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) District Forum, Gurdaspur on July 25,1996 directed Post Office to pay the amount due on saving certificates to the complainant Smt. Kamal Khosia alongwith 18% p. a. interest from the date of maturity of the certificates till payment with Rs.2,000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs.1,000/- towards litigation expenses. That order has been challenged by the opposite parties in this appeal. The details of the certificates pur- chased with date of maturity are given in the impugned order. They are six in number. The certificates were purchased jointly in the names of Kewal Kumar Khosla husband of Smt. Kamal Khosla, complainant and hi s mother Radha Rani. After the death of Radha Rani, Kewal Kumar Khosla being survivor was entitled to the amount of certificates after they matured. Kewal Kumar Khosia having died, his widow Kamal Khosla preferred the claim. Since the Postal Authorities directed her to produce Succession Certificate, she approached the District Forum alleging deficiency in rendering service on the part of the Postal Authorities in not releasing the amount of the certificates to the complainant who being widow was entitled to receive the amount belonging to her husband Kewal Kumar Khosla. It was also asserted that she was the nominee in the certificates. The opposite parties while contesting the complaint in their version admitted having issued the certificates and directed the complainant to produce Succession Certificate to complete the process of release of the amount. Thus, they denied deficiency in rendering service in the facts stated above. On the evidence produced by the parties and the documents, the impugned order was passed by the District Forum.

(2.) Mr. I. S. Sidhu, learned Advocate for the appellant-Post Office Department has argued that since the amount of the certificates club together exceeded Rs.20,000/-, the limit prescribed under the Rules, the opposite parties were fully justified in calling upon the complainant to produce Succession Certificate before releasing the amount. Thus, it has been argued that there was no deficiency in rendering service on the part of the opposite parties. Reference has been made to Rules 29 and 50 of the Post Office SB Manual II. Rule 29 refers to Encashment of Certificates held in joint names. In case of survivor, he can avail the facility of nomination and get the certificate transferred in his name. Rule 50 gives the entire procedure regarding the payment of value of certificate in the name of deceased holders. Rule 50 (1) refers to claim to the value of the certificate on the basis of- (a) Nomination ' (b) Legal evidence (c) Without production of legal evidence.

(3.) This rule also mentions that ifthe claim exceeds Rs.20,000/-, the claimant should be advised to obtain a Succession Certificate from a competent Court of Law. Since in the present case, the total value of the certificates, six in number, exceeds Rs.20,000/- as per rule aforesaid the Postal Authorities directed the claimant to get one. At this stage, it may be observed that calling upon the complainant to obtain Succession Certificate is merely by advise and is not an embargo that without obtaining Succession Certificate the Postal Authorities cannot release the amount. Obtaining Succession Certificate falls in category 'b' "legal Evidence" as referred to above. However, the rule aforesaid also provides for releasing the amount of the certificate without production of legal evidence as provided under Clause 'c' of 50 (1) of the rules referred to above. Since in the present case no nominee was mentioned, the Postal Authorities were required to decide as to whether the claimant was entitled to receive the amount of the certificates or not, even if the claimant was not prepared to get a Succession Certificate from the competent Court. Since no such exercise was done, squarely it would amount to deficiency in rendering service.