UNION OF INDIA Vs. GOKAL CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Union of India through Secretary, Posts and Telegraph Department has come up in appeal against the order dated 27th February, 1998 passed by learned District Forum, Narnaul, where by the complaint of one Gokal Chand Kumhar alleging deficiency in service against the Posts and Telegraph Department in the matter of release of maturity amount of Indira Vikas Patras, has been allowed.

(2.) According to the complainant, he had purchased 4 Indira Vikas Patras total amounting to Rs.10,000/-on30th July, 1990, which matured on 30th July, 1995. Since the Indira Vikas Patras were torn and deteriorated further by some insects their numbers became illegible. For this reason the Post Office concerned refused to release the payment to the complainant. Aggrieved by which the complainant had approached the District Consumer Forum for the redressal of his grievance. In their reply, the Post Office has pleaded, that no doubt the Indira Vikas Patras were issued by Sub Post Office Nangal Chaudhary under registration No.65 on 30th July, 1990 but from the torn pieces of those Patras it could not be ascertained whether those Patras were issued to the complainant or not. The learned District Forum after thoroughly examining the matter in the light of the overwhelming documentary evidence recorded the firm finding that the Indira Vikas Patras were genuinely issued in favour of the complainant and he was entitled to the amount thereof. In view of this finding the complaint was allowed by passing the following direction : "under these circumstances, it is ordered that the opposite party shall make the payments of Indira Vikas Patras referred to above with its maturity value to the complainant on his furnishing indemnity bond to the satisfaction of the concerned Post Office. In case, anybody comes forward to claim payments of those Indira Vikas Patras in future, then in that eventuality, the complainant shall be liable to pay the amount of those Indira Vikas Patras to the concerned Post Office for being paid to the other claimant along with interest as per rules of the Post Office. The complaint is accordingly allowed. However, the parties are left to hear their own costs. "

(3.) In the appeal before us, Mr. G. C. Babbar, learned Counsel for the postal department has vehemently contended that there being no certainty about the issuance of the Indira Vikas Patras in favour of the complainant-respondent and from the torn pieces of the Patras it could not be concluded that the complainant was a genuine purchaser of the same. We have ourselves seen the torn pieces of the Patras and also find that their numbers stood duly recorded in the personal diary and note-book of the complainant. Number of other entries with regard to similar transactions of credit and debit have also been made by the complainant in the note-book which have been maintained in the regular manner. In view of this position we do not find any ground to interfere in the detailed and well-reasoned order passed by the learned District Forum. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.