National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Construction Division Of U.P. Jal ... vs Desk Officer (Cord) Director Post ... on 21 September, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 144 OF 2014 (Against the Order dated 29/10/2013 in Complaint No. 43/2007 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh) WITH IA/1450/2014 1. U.P. JAL NIGAM, CONSTRUCTION DIVISION OF BAREILLY CONSTRUCTION DIVISION (E/M) V-42/G, UP JALNIGAM RAJENDRA NAGAR, BAREILLY ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE, DEPARTMENT OF POST & 3 ORS. DAK BHAWAN, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI 2. POST MASTER GENERAL BAREILLY AREA BAREILLY, UP, LUCKNOW UTTAR PRADESH 3. CHIEF SUPERVISOR POST OFFICE BAREILLY UTTAR PRADESH 4. VICE DAKPAL N.C. LINES POST OFFICE RAMPUR BAGH BAREILLU, UTTAR PRADESH ...........Respondent(s) FIRST APPEAL NO. 145 OF 2014 (Against the Order dated 29/10/2013 in Complaint No. 23/2009 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh) WITH
IA/1450/2014 1. CONSTRUCTION DIVISION OF U.P. JAL NIGAM, BAREILLY THROUGH EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CONSTRUCTION DIVISION (E/M)V-42/G, UTTAR PRADESH JAL NIGAM, RAJENDRA NAGAR, BAREILLY UTTAR PARDESH ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. DESK OFFICER (CORD) DIRECTOR POST DEPARTMENT, POST HOUSE, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI 2. POST MASTER GENERAL BAREILLY, UTTAR PRADESH LUCKNOW, 3. CHIEF SUPERVISOR POST OFFICE BAREILLY, UTTAR PRADESH 4. VICE DAKPAL, N.C. LINES POST OFFICE RAMPUR BAGH, BAREILLY UTTAR PRADESH ...........Respondent(s) FIRST APPEAL NO. 173 OF 2014 (Against the Order dated 29/10/2013 in Complaint No. 34/2006 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh) WITH IA/1450/2014 1. U.P. JAL NIGAM Through Executive Engineer, Ganga Pollution Control Unit,Benjhawar, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Post Master General Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh. 2. Superintendent of Posts, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh. 3. Post Master General Nawabganj, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh. 4. Upper Superintendent of Post Office Kanpur Nagar Mandal, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER For the Appellant : Mr.S.K. Tiwari, Advocates For the Respondent : Mr.B.K. Berera, Advocate (in FA/144 & 145/2014) Dr.Uday Veer Singh, Advocate (in FA/173/2014) Dated : 21 Sep 2015 ORDER These three Appeals under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act") have been filed by the U.P. Jal Nigam, Construction Division of Bareilly (for short "the Jal Nigam"), questioning the correctness and legality of a common order dated 29.10.2013, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.P., Lucknow (for short "the State Commission") in Complaint Nos.34/2006, 43/2007 and 23/2009. By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the Complaints filed by the Jal Nigam, seeking a direction to the Post Master General, Kanpur and its functionaries, the Respondents herein, to pay to it the maturity value of the Kissan Vikas Patras (for short "the KVPs), which included the interest element on the face value of each of the KVPs.
Since the issue involved in all the three Appeals is identical, except the face value of the KVPs, these are being disposed of by this common order.
The short controversy in the Complaints filed by the Jal Nigam before the State Commission was whether or not the Respondents were justified in refusing to pay interest on the subject KVPs, to the Jal Nigam, a Public Authority, because the KVPs were purchased by the two individuals, namely, U.S. Mittal and G.S. Dangwal, in their capacity as the Executive Engineers of the Jal Nigam and in one case, the KVPs had been purchased in the name of its Project Manager. According to the Respondents, in view of the Notification, issued by the Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India, bearing No.G.S.R. 119 (E) dated 8.3.1995, which came into force w.e.f. 1.4.1995, since the KVPs, could not be purchased by any Corporation or Organization, it was not liable to pay interest to the Jal Nigam, notwithstanding the fact that the individuals/officials in whose names KVPs were purchased, had pledged these KVPs in its favour. On the contrary, the stand of the Jal Nigam was that when the said KVPs were obtained on maturity of the old KVPs, the respondents had not informed them that these could not be issued in its favour.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the copies of the KVPs placed on record, we are of the opinion that these Appeals are bereft of any merit.
While candidly admitting that at the relevant time the KVPs could not be purchased in the name of Jal Nigam, learned counsel appearing for the Jal Nigam pleads that the KVPs were obtained in order to earn higher rate of interest for the benefit of the subscribers to the Public Provident Fund. It is pleaded that having kept the money and utilized the same for a period of 5½ years, the respondents cannot deprive the Jal Nigam of the interest on the said amounts.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents have submitted that though some connivance of its staff could not be ruled out, but the KVPs in question, having been issued in contravention of the Scheme, the Respondents cannot be made liable to pay interest on the said KVPs. In support of the submission, learned counsel have placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Arulmighu Dhandayudhapaniswamy Thirukoil, Palani, Tamil Nadu vs. Director General of Post Offices, Department of Posts & Others - (2011) 13 SCC 220.
Having perused the applications filed for purchase of the KVPs in question, which are in the names of two individuals and a Project Manager, we are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with Counsel for the Jal Nigam.
In our view, the very fact that the KVPs were purchased in the names of the officials of the Jal Nigam out of the public funds, makes it clear that the Jal Nigam was aware of the fact that the KVPs could not be purchased by any organization or Corporation. It was only to circumvent the restrictions in the Scheme that the Jal Nigam purchased the KVPs in the names of its employees and got them pledged in its name. Any direction to pay interest on such kind of transaction would not only be in contravention of the Scheme, it would amount to adding premium to an illegality.
We are of the opinion that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arulmighu's case (supra) is on all fours to the facts at hand. Although in that case, the Scheme involved was National Saving Certificates (NSCs) but the principle of law laid down therein squarely applies in the present case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that since the NSCs were issued in contravention of the Scheme, the contract itself was unlawful and void and the refusal of the Govt. of India for not making payment of interest on the said NSCs did not amount to deficiency in service either in terms of the contract or in terms of the law as defined under Section 2(1)(g) of the Act.
In view of the above, all the three Appeals fail and are dismissed accordingly.
However, before parting with the case, we deem it necessary to note that after the passing of the impugned order on 29.10.2013, whereby the Respondents had been directed to refund the principal amount of the KVPs in question forthwith, there was delay in release of the principal amount. As the Respondents had accepted the impugned order, there was no reason as to why the principal amount was not refunded to the Appellant forthwith. It was definitely a lapse on their part. Under the circumstances, we direct the Respondents to pay to the Appellant interest @ 9% p.a. on the Principal amount due under the KVPs from the date of receipt of a copy of the order of the State Commission till the date of actual payment to the Appellant. The said amount shall be paid within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The Appeals stand disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.
......................J D.K. JAIN PRESIDENT ...................... M. SHREESHA MEMBER