State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Post Master / Sub Post Master At Post ... vs Rajinder Mohan Mehra on 1 October, 2009
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
S.C.O. NO.3009-10, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.943 of 2006
Date of institution : 24.07.2006
Date of decision : 01.10.2009
1. The Post Master / Sub Post Master at Post Office at Guru Bazar,
Amritsar.
2. The General Post Office at Court Road, Opposite New Rialto
Cinema, Amritsar through its Senior Superintendent of Post Offices/
any other person authorised to receive summons on behalf of the
opp.party.
...Appellants
Versus
Rajinder Mohan Mehra s/o Sh.Shori Lal Mehra, resident of 145-B, Krishna
Square-II, Amritsar.
...Respondent
First Appeal against the order dated 10.5.2006
of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Amritsar.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President.
Lt.Col.Darshan Singh (Retd.), Member.
Present:-
For the appellants : Sh.Namit Kumar, Advocate.
For the respondent : Ex-parte.
JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT Rajinder Mohan Mehra respondent had purchased 12 Kisan Vikas Patras (in short "K.V.Ps") for an amount of Rs.1,15,000/- in the name of Hindu Undivided Family (in short "H.U.F."). The maturity value was Rs.2,30,000/- and the maturity date was 1.7.2005. After the expiry of First Appeal No.943 of 2006 2 maturity date, the respondent approached the appellants for receiving the maturity value to the tune of Rs.2,30,000/-. However, appellants declined to do so, on the plea that K.V.Ps could not be purchased in the name of H.U.F. Hence the complaint in the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (in short "learned District Forum').
Compensation, interest and cost was also prayed.
2. The appellants filed written reply. All other facts were admitted. It was pleaded that purchase of K.V.Ps. for a sum of Rs.1,15,000/- in the name of H.U.F. by the respondent was in contravention of the rules. Therefore, the respondent was entitled only to face value of K.V.Ps. Hence, it was prayed that complaint be dismissed.
3. Parties led evidence in support of their respective version by way of affidavits and documents.
4. After considering the pleadings of the parties and the affidavits/ documents produced on the file by them, the learned District Forum accepted the complaint vide order dated 10.5.2006 with costs of Rs.1000/- and directed the appellants to pay maturity amount of K.V.Ps. with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of maturity till the payment of maturity amount.
5. Hence the appeal.
6. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants was that the purchase of K.V.Ps by the respondent in the name of H.U.F. was in violation of rules. Therefore, the respondent was not entitled to the maturity value. It was prayed that appeal be accepted and impugned order dated 10.5.2006 be set aside.
7. Record has been perused. Submission has been considered.
8. Admittedly, the K.V.Ps. could not have been purchased in the name of H.U.F. as it was in contravention of Rule 6 (1) of K.V.Ps. Rules. The respondent was at fault in purchasing the K.V.Ps. in the name of First Appeal No.943 of 2006 3 H.U.F. in violation of rules thereof. At the same time, the appellants were also at fault in accepting the money of K.V.Ps. against the rules and retaining the same for such a long time.
9. Some judgments are in favour of the appellants and some judgments are against the appellants.
10. Since the Consumer Fora under the Consumer Protection Act are justice-oriented Courts shorn of technicalities, therefore, the Hon'ble National Commission in the judgment dated 01.09.2009 passed in Revision Petition No.2180 of 2004 "Senior Post Master v. Arvind Industries" was pleased to strike a balance between the two divergent views, on the basis of equitable justice. Neither the interest was paid which was permissible at the K.V.Ps rate nor it was paid at the saving bank rate which the respondents offered. The Hon'ble National Commission had granted interest @ 6% p.a. on the amount from the date of deposit till the date of payment by observing as under : -
"We agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Kisan Vikas Patras could not be purchased in the name of HUF and that, the purchase of the Kisan Vikas Patras by the respondent was irregular. The respondent would not be entitled to get Rs.1,60,000/- on maturity. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has kept the money deposited by the respondent and utilized it for all this period in equity, we direct the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.80,000/- which was deposited by the respondent, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, as has been held in consultation with Government of India in certain other cases, from the date of deposit till the amount is/was paid to the respondent."
11. Keeping in view the discussions held above, this appeal is partly accepted and the impugned order dated 10.5.2006 is modified and the respondent is entitled only to the interest at the rate of 6% per annum First Appeal No.943 of 2006 4 on the principal amount deposited from the date of deposit till the date of payment along with the principal amount invested.
12. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.25000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 24.7.2006. This amount of Rs.25000/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellants.
13. The interest on the amount of Rs.25000/- shall stop running with effect from the date the appellants had deposited the same in this Commission. Interest on this amount of Rs.25000/- shall be what has accrued on this amount when it remained deposited by this Commission in the Bank.
14. Remaining amount shall be paid by the appellants to the respondent within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which appellants shall be liable to pay another amount of Rs.10000/- to the respondent as cost /compensation for the delay.
15. The arguments were heard in this case on 29.9.2009 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
16. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(Justice S.N.Aggarwal) President (Lt.Col.Darshan Singh [Retd.]) Member October 01 , 2009.
Davinder