State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sub Postmaster vs Revati Prasad Garg on 14 March, 2016
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UP C-1 Vikrant Khand 1 (Near Shaheed Path), Gomti Nagar Lucknow-226010 First Appeal No. A/1997/101 (Arisen out of Order Dated in Case No. of District ) 1. Sub Postmaster A ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Revati Prasad Garg A ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. Alok Kumar Bose PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. Sanjay Kumar MEMBER For the Appellant: For the Respondent: ORDER RESERVED State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission U.P., Lucknow. Appeal No.101 of 1997 Sub Post Master, District: Hapur Ghaziabad. ....Appellant. Versus Revati Prasad Garg s/o Ram Saran Das, No.341/1, Patel Nagar, District: Hapur. (Since dead) Duly substituted by Sri Ravindra Kumar Garg. ...Respondent. Present:- 1- Hon'ble Sri A.K. Bose, Presiding Member. 2- Hon'ble Sri Sanjai Kumar, Member. Dr. U.V. Singh for the appellant. None for the respondent. Date 5.5.2016 JUDGMENT
Sri A.K. Bose, Member- Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 31.12.1996, passed by the Ld. DCDRF, Ghaziabad in complaint case No.708 of 1995, the appellant Sub Post Master, District: Hapur, Ghaziabad has preferred the instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act 68 of 1986) on the ground that the impugned order is arbitrary, perverse and is bad in the eye of law. It was delivered without proper appreciation of law and/or application of mind on the basis of surmises and conjunctures and therefore, it has been prayed that the same be set aside in the interest of justice, otherwise the appellant will suffer irreparable loss.
From perusal of the records, it transpires that the respondent/complainant Sri Revati Prasad Garg expired (2) during the pendency of the appeal on 8.6.1998. Accordingly, a notice was sent to his legal heir Sri Ravindra Kumar Garg, 341/1, Patel Nagar, Hapur. Sri Ravindra Kumar moved an application by means of Speed Post: ED 254046482 IN before this Commission that he was not interested in pursuing the matter for lack of knowledge about the case. It was, however, not disputed that he was the legal heir/representative of the deceased respondent/ complainant Sri Revati Prasad Garg, hence he was ordered to be substituted in his place. Since service of notice was sufficient and he was not interested in contesting the matter therefore, the appeal proceeded exparte against him. Consequently, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant Post Office was heard exparte in view of the provisions contained under Rule 8(6) of the U.P. Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 read with Section 30(2) of the Act 68 of 1986.
From perusal of the records, it transpires that the respondent/complainant late Sri Revati Prasad Garg purchased 4 Indira Vikas Patras (IVP) bearing nos.260526 to 260529 of Rs.500.00 each and 2 Indira Vikas Patras of Rs.5,000.00 bearing nos.877957 and 877958 on 8.2.1990. It has been alleged in the complaint that the aforesaid 6 certificates were partly eaten by termites (white ants) and consequently, got mutilated/damaged. The appellant Post Office refused to encash them on ground of destroyed beyond recognition. Aggrieved by this gross remiss and non-feasance in public office, complaint case no.708 of 1995 was preferred before the Forum below.
(3)The appellant Post Office took the plea before the Forum below that encashment of the Indira Vikas Patras are governed by Indira Vikas Patra Rules, 1986 which was published in the Gazette of India: Extraordinary Part II - Sec. 3- SS (i) Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance, Government of India dated 5.11.1986. Rule 7 of the aforesaid rules provides that:
"If a certificate is mutilated or defaced, the bearer is entitled for replacement from the Post Office of issue on payment of fee of rupee one."
Rule 7(2) further provides that:
"A certificate lost, stolen, mutilated, defaced or destroyed beyond recognition, will not be replaced by any Post Office."
It was contended that the certificates produced for encashment were beyond recognition and therefore, in view of Rule 7(2) of the Rules, 1986, they were not encashed and the respondent/complainant late Sri Revati Prasad Garg was informed accordingly vide letters dated 20.7.1995 and 5.9.1995. The Forum below, however, allowed the complaint and directed the appellant to pay entire amount mentioned in the Indira Vikas Patras with all consequential benefits. It also directed the appellant to pay pendentelite and future interest @ 18% p.a. It also directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.1,000.00 as compensation.
Aggrieved by this judgment and order, the instant appeal was preferred. In the instant matter, the (4) photocopies of the Indira Vikas Patras are on record. A perusal of the same would reveal that they have been defaced or mutilated in such manner that they have lost their originality and can not be recognized for certainty. These IVPs do not bear the printed numbers and other necessary particulars and, therefore, can be termed as defaced, mutilated as well as damaged. The term 'deface' means "to spoil the surface or appearance of something by drawing or writing on it", whereas, 'mutilate' means "to injure disfigure or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts." Destroy means "end of existence of something so badly that it cannot be reused, to eliminate, eradicate, liquidate, erase, finish or extinguish or root-out." In the instant matter, the IVPs have been so badly eaten by the termites (white ants) that they have lost their originality and can not be recognized in toto and reused. No man of ordinary prudence will like to deal with such damaged IVPs. The numbers have been eaten by the termites. Thus, it is clear that the matter was covered under Rule 7(2) of the Indira Vikas Patra Rules, 1986.
It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Central Government of India & Ors. vs. Krishnaji Parvetesh Kulkarni, 2006 SCW 1946 that:
"an IVP is akin to an ordinary currency note. It bears no name of he holder. Just as a lost currency note cannot be replaced, similarly the question of replacing a lost IVP does not arise. Rule 7(2) makes the position clear that a certificate lost, stolen, mutilated, defaced or destroyed beyond recognition will not be replaced by any Post Office. Similar is the position as regards the certificate which is (5) either lost or stolen. Undisputedly there was no challenge to the legality of the rule 7(2). In the absence of a challenge to the provision, any direction should not really have been given. It is fundamental that no direction which is contrary to law can be given."
Under the given circumstances, the appellant Post Office was justified in not encashing the same. The Forum below failed to appreciate the legal position and passed the impugned order in a mechanical manner. The judgment and order suffers from material irregularity and illegality and therefore, can not be allowed to sustain. Consequently, the appeal deserves to be allowed.
ORDER The appeal is allowed and the judgment and order dated 31.12.1996, passed by the Ld. DCDRF, Ghaziabad in complaint case No.708 of 1995 is set-aside. No order as to costs. Certified copy of the judgment be provided to the parties in accordance with rules.
(A.K. Bose) (Sanjai Kumar) Presiding Member Member Jafri PA II Court No.3 [HON'BLE MR. Alok Kumar Bose] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. Sanjay Kumar] MEMBER