State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sh. Hukum Chand vs Sh. Prem Chand And Another on 30 November, 2006
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARANCHAL - 4 - STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARANCHAL DEHRA DUN FIRST APPEAL NO. 167 / 2006 Sh. Hukum Chand ......Appellant Versus Sh. Prem Chand and another .....Respondents Sh. Madan Pal Kamboj, Learned Counsel for the Appellant Sh. Sewaram Tyagi, Learned Attorney for the Respondent No. 1 Sh. Ashok Dimri, Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 Coram: Hon'ble Justice Irshad Hussain, President Ms. Luxmi Singh, Member Dated: 30.11.2006 ORDER
(Per:
Mr. Justice Irshad Hussain, President):
This is an appeal against the order dated 28.06.2006 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in Consumer Complaint Nos. 190 of 2003; Sh. Hukum Chand Vs. Postmaster and another and 259 of 2003; Sh. Prem Chand Vs. Sh. Hukum Singh and others, whereby the maturity amount of Kisan Vikas Patra of value of Rs. 10,000/- purchased by late Sh. Sita Ram Sharma was directed to be paid by Postmaster, Manglour equally to the managers of Adarsh Bal Niketan Vishwakarma Mandir, Manglour and Arya Samaj Mandir, Jhabrera, Tehsil Roorkee, within the stipulated period.
2. Late Sh. Sita Ram Sharma purchased 5½ year Kisan Vikas Patra of value of Rs. 10,000/- on 21.06.1995 from Post Office Manglour Town (Roorkee) and he expired before he could be able to receive the matured amount of the said instrument. Claims were preferred by the present appellant Sh. Hukum Chand and one Sh. Prem Chand for release of the matured value of the instrument in their favour on the plea that they are the nominees and heirs respectively of the deceased late Sh. Sita Ram Sharma. The postal department refused to pay the amount to them in view of the rival claims and on account of both the claimants having preferred consumer complaints mentioned above before the District Forum, Haridwar for a direction regarding payment of the maturity amount of the said instrument exclusively in their favour. The postal department raised the plea that in the peculiar circumstances of the case and the rival claims preferred, it is not legally possible to sustain the claim of any of the two claimants unless and until a succession certificate from a competent court of civil jurisdiction is obtained and filed with it to facilitate release of the matured value of the instrument. The District Forum rejected the contention of the postal department and strangely enough passed the impugned order as mentioned above.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent No. 2 and learned attorney for the respondent No. 1 and have carefully considered their submissions in the light of the legal aspects of the matter and broad features and facts of the case.
4. The postal department was directed to produce the application for purchase of Kisan Vikas Patra which had been submitted by its purchaser late Sh. Sita Ram Sharma and the xerox copy of the same brought on record is Paper No. 62. It reveal that one Sh. Hukum Chand C/o Holder of the Kisan Vikas Patra was mentioned as nominee. Parentage of the said nominee is not given and another nominee Sh. Prem Chand raised the dispute that claimant Sh. Hukum Chand who filed the consumer complaint No. 190 of 2003 is not the same person whose name find place as nominee in the application form. The extract of the voter list (Paper Nos. 23 - 24) indicate the name of such person as Sh. Hukum Singh and in view of it, the consumer complaint was filed in the name of Sh. Hukum Chand alias Hukum Singh, which apparently raise the genuine doubt about the identity of the person nominated in the application form.
5. Sh.
Prem Chand, the claimant in consumer complaint No. 259 of 2003 is not mentioned as nominee in the application form for purchase of Kisan Vikas Patra in question and his claim for matured value of the instrument was apparently rightly challenged by the other claimant Sh. Hukum Chand. In the face of this situation, the postal department was fully justified in refusing the claim of both these two claimants on the plea that the matured amount of the instrument can be paid to the person who may be granted succession certificate by a competent court of civil jurisdiction in that regard. The District Forum failed to take this legal aspect of the matter into account and strangely enough passed an innovative erroneous order directing the postal department to pay the matured value of the instrument equally to two institutions named above through their managers. In the eye of law, such an order cannot be maintained and that too also on the merit and facts of the case. Considering the stand taken by the postal department in refusing to allow the claim of the respective claimants, there was absolutely no deficiency in service as the claimants were asked to take recourse to the legal proceeding for obtaining succession certificate from a competent court so that under that certificate which is granted under the provision of Indian Succession Act, 1925, the rightful claimant could have been paid the matured value of the said instrument i.e. Kisan Vikas Patra.
6. In view of above discussion, the impugned order of the District Forum being erroneous and against the merit and facts of the case, warrant interference and need to be set aside. Since the postal department has not made any deficiency in service, both the consumer complaints are liable to be dismissed and the parties are to be relegated to obtain succession certificate issued by District Judge under provisions of Indian Succession Act, 1925.
7. Appeal is disposed of accordingly. Order dated 28.06.2006 of the District Forum is set aside and both the consumer complaint Nos. 190 of 2003; Sh. Hukum Chand Vs. Postmaster and another and 259 of 2003; Sh. Prem Chand Vs. Sh. Hukum Singh and others, are hereby dismissed. The claimants are relegated to seek appropriate remedy in the form of succession certificate from the District Judge under provisions of Indian Succession Act, 1925 so that the matured value of the Kisan Vikas Patra in question may be released by the postal department in favour of the holder of the succession certificate. Cost of the appeal made easy.
(MS.
LUXMI SINGH) (JUSTICE IRSHAD HUSSAIN)