State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sub Postmaster, vs Soygaon Taluka Sahakari Kharedi Vikri ... on 12 April, 2010
1 F.A.No.:757/06
Date of filing :13.04.2006
Date of order :12.04.2010
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL
COMMISSION,MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
APPEAL NO. :757 OF 2006
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.:222 OF 2005
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM :AURANGABAD.
Sub Postmaster,
Post Office Soegaon,
Tq.Soygaon,
Dist.Aurangabad. ...APPELLANT
(Org.Opponent No.1)
VERSUS
The Manager,
Soygaon Taluka Sahakari Kharedi
Vikri Sangh Ltd.,
Talukar Soygaon,
Dist.Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENT
(Org.Complainant)
CORAM : Shri.S.G.Deshmukh, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.
Mrs.Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member.
Present : Adv.Shri.Ruturaj Patil for appellant, Adv.Shri.S.T.Agrawal for respondent.
O R A L O R D E R Per Shri.S.G.Deshmukh Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.
1. The present appeal is filed by Sub-post Master, Post Office, Soygaon against the judgment and order dated 20.02.2006 in complaint case No. 222/05 passed by District Consumer Forum, Aurangabad.
2. Respondent/Org.Complainant`s case before the Forum is that, complainant is Manager, Soygaon Taluka Sahakari Kharedi Vikri Sangh. It is contended that he deposited Rs.40,000/- in 4 Kisan 2 F.A.No.:757/06 Vikas Patra each for Rs.10,000/- on 28.9.1999 for 5 ½ years. It is contended that on 21.1.2004 and 16.4.2005 he applied for amount in KVP but the amount was not paid. It is contended that he made communication with the superiors of appellant, but no action was taken and thus he approached the Forum for Rs.40,000/- + 40,000/- and interest thereon.
3. Appellant appeared before the Forum and resisted the claim. It is contended that purchase of Kisan Vikas Patra by Manager, Soygaon Taluka Sahakari Kharedi Vikri Sangh Maryadit,Soygaon from Soygaon Post Office on 28.2.99 is in contravention of Rule 6 of KVP Rules 1988. Thus the complainant is not entitled for payment of interest on said certificates. It is further contended that complainant had made correspondence with their office, he was informed that the case was referred to higher authority for consideration. They are not entitled to grant interest accrued thereon on principal amount of KVP.
4. The Forum below after going through the papers and hearing the parties allowed the complaint with direction to pay Rs.80,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from 28.3.2005 and also directed appellant to pay Rs.3000/- towards cost.
5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order passed by the District Forum, Aurangabad, original opponent came in appeal.
6. Notices were issued to the appellant as well as respondent. Learned counsel Shri.Ruturaj Patil appeared on behalf of appellant whereas learned counsel Shri.S.T.Agrawal appeared on behalf of respondent. Learned counsel Shri.Ruturaj Patil submitted that Rule 6 of KVP Rules does not permit the complainant society to purchase KVP. He submitted that by Rule 6 of KVP Rule limited persons are entitled to purchase KVP. Therefore respondent who is society is not entitled to the interest on the principal amount. Learned counsel 3 F.A.No.:757/06 submitted that the contract is contrary to the rules notified by Government of India. Complainant is not entitle to purchase KVP it was only due to inadvertence of the staff KVPs are sold to complainant. Such contract does not become contract binding the Government of India being unlawful and void. Learned counsel relied on judgment of Hon`ble Supreme Court in SLP(C ) No.38 of 1995 in Postmaster Dargamitta H.P.O. Nellore -Vs- Ms.Raja Pramaelamma'. He also relied on judgment of this Commission in 'Sub Postmaster - Vs- Badrinath Bhanudas Girje' in F.A.506/2009 decided on 09.10.2009.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel Shri.S.T.Agrawal submitted that appellant retained the amount of petitioner for the specific period. No such irregularity or illegality was pointed out by appellant. Even during the period of investment the appellant never intimated the complainant about irregularity in purchase of KVP. Learned counsel relied on 'Postmaster and other -Vs- Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti' reported in 2006NCJ 210(NC) & Postmaster General, H.P. Circle and Ors. -Vs- The Khanyara Co.operative Forest Society Ltd.' reported in I(2006) CPJ 149(NC).
8. We perused the papers and gave our anxious thoughts to the arguments advanced by both the counsels and citations relied by them. There is no dispute that complainant Manger, Soygaon Taluka Sahakari Kharedi Vikri Sangh Maryadit purchased 4 KVP each of Rs.10,000/- on 28.9.99 for 5 ½ years. According to appellant complainant society is not entitled to purchase KVP under Rule 6 of KVP Rules 1988. On going through Rule 6 of KVP, it appears that KVPs have been purchased by the complainant in contravention to the Rule 6 of KVP Rules. There is no legal right vested in the complainant to purchase KVP and to earn interest thereon. It is also apparent that postal authority did not find irregularity for purchase of KVP till complainant approached for receiving the money of the said KVPs. It 4 F.A.No.:757/06 appears that after the complainant approached them for encashment then only appellant refused to make payment of maturity amount stating that certificates have been purchased in contravention of Rule 6 of KVP Rules. Complainant can not be blamed for coming forward to purchase KVP as no such irregularity or illegality was ever pointed out by the appellant. As per ratio in Raja Pramelamma`s case (Supra) the contract which is contrary to the terms notified by Government of India does not become contract binding the Government of India being unlawful and void.
9. Rule 13 of KVP reads as;
13. Excess or irregular holding: 1) Any certificate purchased or acquired in excess or the limits prescribed in these rules or in the old rules or in contravention of these rules shall be encashed by the holder as soon as fact of the holding being in excess of the limit or in contravention of these rules is discovered and no interest shall be paid on either the excess holding or any holding in contravention of these rules. Provided that the holding shall not be considered in excess of the limit prescribed in these rules or in the old rules. If it is due to any of the following reasons, namely;
(a) Inneritance,
(b) Award by the Government for meritorious services,
(C) Survivorship in the case of joint holding,
(d) Statutory devolution and
(e) Nomination
Provided further that where the Central Government is satisfied that such purchase or acquisition of certificates is due to a bonafide error on the part of the holder thereof, it may authorise payment of simple interest on the face value of the certificate at the same rate as is admissible for the time being in force for the type of saving accounts in 5 F.A.No.:757/06 the post office savings bank with which such holder is entitled to open under the provisions of the post office Savings Account Rules, 1981.
It is apparent from above that care has been taken while enacting Rule 13 for purchase of KVP in contravention of KVP Rules of 1988, by the proviso of Rule 13 that if Central Government of India is satisfied that such purchase or acquisition of KVP is due to bonafide error, it may authorise the payment of simple interest on the face value of certificate at the same rate as is admissible for the time being in force for the type of saving accounts in the post office saving bank.
10. In Khanyara Co.operative Forest Society Ltd.`s case (Supra), it appears from the judgment of Hon`ble National Commission that 'certificate issued were irregular as maturity amount was not being paid said matter was taken to postal authority with Ministry of Finance who regularized issue in favour of the complainant vide it letter dated 27.8.1997. Accordingly, maturity amount was offered'.
11. In Union of India -Vs- Satinder Nath Verma(HUF), 2005 NCJ 130(NC)`s case the National Commission has observed in para 3 that "in some cases such dispute shall be regularised by the Union of India and therefore number of Kisan Vikas Patra have been regularised vide office memorandum No.F3/1/2004/NS-II, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs, Budget Division (NS-II Section)". In the instant case, it appears that no efforts have been taken by present appellant for getting regularised the issue by taking matter with the Ministry of Finance. It appears that in some cases Postal Department had moved with Ministry of Finance for getting regularised the issue in which such certificates were issued irregularly and got regularised issue and paid maturity amount. Officials of post office had issued KVP in the name of society which is as per Rule 6 of KVP is irregular. It is also apparent that officials did 6 F.A.No.:757/06 not find the said irregularity till the complainant approached for encashment amount of KVP. In the circumstances, we are inclined to give directions to the complainant to move the postal department for relaxation. Postal Department is to submit proposal to the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, Delhi with recommendation of relaxation and regularisation of the investment. We hope that Finance Department would give similar kind of treatment to the complainant as decided earlier. Accordingly, we pass the following order.
O R D E R
1. Appeal is allowed and order is modified as follows.
2. Complainant is directed to move the Postal Department for relaxation. Postal Department is directed to submit the proposal of relaxation to the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, Delhi for relaxation and regularisation of investment. Procedural compliance with regard to the relaxation and regularisation of the investment be made promptly.
3. No order to cost.
4. Copies of the judgment be issued to both the parties.
Mrs.Uma S.Bora S.G.Deshmukh
Member Presiding Judicial Member.
Mane