National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Post Master And Ors. vs Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti on 15 July, 2005
Equivalent citations: IV(2005)CPJ95(NC)
ORDER
B.K. Taimini, Member
1. The petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum, where the respondent/complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner.
2. Very briefly the facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant, who is a body under the law of the State Government, purchased Kisan Vikas Patra (KVP) floated by Government of India by investing Rs. 1,26,000/- for a period of 5 1/2 years, on 25.9.1997, maturing on 25.3.2003. The maturity amount payable to the complainant was Rs. 2,52,000/-. When on 2.4.3.03, the complainant approached the petitioner relying upon certain rule, petitioner informed the respondent that they are entitled only to the principal, as the KVPs have been purchased in an improper manner; no interest shall be payable to them as per rules.
3. It is in these circumstances, a complaint came to be filed before the District Forum, who after hearing the parties, allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay the maturity amount along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of maturity till the date of payment. Aggrieved by this order, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, which was also dismissed with cost, hence this revision petition.
4. We heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The basic facts of investments are undisputed. The only point advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that as per rules this investment could not have been made by an institution like the respondent/ complainant. The investment was to be made by an individual and since the KVPs were obtained in an improper manner, the petitioner is not liable to pay any interest except for the principal amount of KVP. A meek effort was also made to allure, firstly, us and then perhaps the respondent/complainant by offering to pay simple interest payable on saving account by the Post Office in this present case.
5. We have perused the material on record. We must castigate firstly improper and completely unwanted language used by the petitioner before the District Forum, where they have used the words "complainant had intentionally got issued the KVPs in the name of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti". It was also stated before the District Forum that the fact that petitioner could not have invested in KVP was within the knowledge of the respondent/ complainant. To say the least no such evidence has been led on this point. In our view, the District Forum was quite correct in holding that if there is any deficiency, it is on the part of the petitioner Post Office because it was only within their knowledge that investment in KVPs can be made only by an individual and not by an institution. In what circumstances and under what conditions, the petitioner wishes to protect the wrong doing on the part of the employee of the Post Office, who issued the KVPs is not clear to us. In any case, we refrain from adversely commenting on this point.
6. We have very carefully gone through Rule 13 of KVPs Rule 60, it has got no application in the present case as the present case is neither a case of investment in excess of the prescribed limit or a case of bonafide error on the part of the holder. Error, if any, is on the part of the issuing Post Office.
7. When an ordinary investor with a view to enhancing the resources of the institutions invests in Government Securities, which are popularized manifestly to attract the customer, he commits no error. No rules are shown to him, except the return on the investment. The petitioner has completely failed to show us as to under what conditions, the respondent complainant got attracted/allured to invest except to earn a better return on the money for the institution. We are unable to appreciate at this late stage the meek offer made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner Post Office is willing to pay simple interest available on saving account in the Post Office. This is too late in the day. Certificate issued to the investor is a contract between the parties and that document clearly stated that the complainant shall be getting a given amount at the time of maturity and in our view the complainant is entitled for this amount and no less.
8. We also fail to appreciate as to how to anyone, least of all, a Government constituted for the purpose of welfare of the people and its institutions can take a completely unacceptable plea that they can retain the money for almost 5 1/2 years and not pay the interest? This would be worse than a worst case scenario. It appears that this was a case of system failure in that, for all the period of almost 5 1/2 years, the petitioner could not detect the mistake. We will not like to comment any further on the specific point of failure on the part of the petitioner.
9. If any wrong has been committed by the employee of the petitioner then it is for them to recover this amount by holding proper inquiry, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, . The investor/ consumer cannot be on the receiving end for any failure on the part of the petitioner. It is for them to put their house in order.
10. In view of above discussion, we find no ground to interfere with the order passed by the District Forum and affirmed by the State Commission.
11. This revision petition is devoid of merit, hence dismissed.