State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1.The Poist Master,Kamptee vs The Chief Officer. on 6 July, 2017
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA NAGPUR CIRCUIT BENCH NAGPUR First Appeal No. A/05/721 (Arisen out of Order Dated 02/02/2005 in Case No. cc/03/154 of District Nagpur) 1. 1.The Poist Master,Kamptee Head Post Office,Kamptee Dist.Nagpur. Nagpur ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. The Chief Officer. Municpal Counsil, Dist. Nagpur. 2. Sr.Supdt.of Post Office M.F.L.Division,Dhantoli,Nagpur Nagpur 3. Post Master General Vidharbha Region, Shankar Nagar,Nagpur Nagpur ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. B.A.SHAIKH PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. Jayshree Yengal MEMBER For the Appellant: For the Respondent: Dated : 06 Jul 2017 Final Order / Judgement (Delivered on 6/7/2017) Per Smt. Jayshree Yengal, Hon'ble Member
This appeal challenges the order dated 2/2/2005, passed by the Addl. District Consumer Forum, Nagpur, partly allowing the consumer complaint bearing No. 154/2003 and thereby directing the opposite party ( for short OP)/appellant herein to pay the complainant the principle amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- along with 9 percent per annum interest from the date of maturity, that is from 8/9/2001 of Kisan Vikas Patra (KVP) till the date of realization and the OP is further directed to pay Rs. 7,00,000/- to the complainant as compensation towards the equitable actual loss, damage and balance maturity amount and Rs. 1,000/- more towards cost of proceedings and the aforesaid directions to be complied within two months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
Respondent, the Chief Officer, Municipal Counsil, Kamptee, District Nagpur is referred as complainant and appellant No. 1 Post Master, Kamptee, Head Post office, Kamptee, District Nagpur, appellant No. 2 Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, MFL Division, Dhantoli, Nagpur and appellant No. 3 Post Master General, Vidarbha Region, Shankar Nagar, Nagpur are referred as OP Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively, for the sake of convenience.
Facts in brief as set out by the complainant in his consumer complaint are as under.
The Chief officer, Municipal Council Kamptee, District Nagpur filed a consumer complaint seeking the maturity amount of Rs. 14,00,000/- being the maturity amount of Kisan Vikas Patra bearing Nos. OOGG-138575 to OOGG138588 from OP Nos. 1 to 3 Post Master, Kamptee, Head Post office, Kamptee, District Nagpur, OP No. 2 Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, MFL Division, Dhantoli, Nagpur and OP No. 3 Post Master General, Vidarbha Region, Shankar Nagar, Nagpur, sum of Rs. 5,04,000/- being interest on the maturity amount from the date of maturity till filing of the complaint, and Rs. 5,00,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment and Rs. 50,000/- towards cost of proceedings.
It is the contention of the complainant that he being the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council, Kamptee which is a Statutory Public Body is required to run various school to impart education to the students residing within the Municipal Council limits under the welfare scheme. The Chief Officer of the municipal council is the designated authority to invest, open or operate any account. The Chief Officer with an intention to enhance the benefit from the contributions of the teachers can invest in accordance with the directives of Govt. of Maharashtra. Accordingly the complainant invested Rs. 7,00,000/-in Kisan Vikas Patra on 8/3/1996 for the period of 5 ½ years, that is from 1/3/1996 to 8/9/2001. The complainant therefore on maturity of the aforesaid Kisan Vikas Patra requested the OP No. 1 by letter dated 11/9/2001 for the maturity amount of Rs. 14,00,000/-. The complainant submitted the original Kisan Vikas Patra duly signed on the reverse as discharge of said amount in advance, with the aforesaid letter to the OP No. 1. The OP No. 1, however on the same day returned the certificates of Kisan Vikas Patra (KVP) to the complainant under the pretext that he did not want to keep such high value Kisan Vikas Patra in his custody. The complainant again approached the OP for encashment of Kisan Vikas Patra, but the same was refused. The complainant repeatedly requested for the maturity amount on 11/9/2001 and by letter dated 19/9/2001. As the OP Nos. 2 and 3 did not pay any heed to the representation of the complainant, the complainant approached OP No. 1 seeking encashment of maturity amount of Kisan Vikas Patra.
It is further contended by the complainant that OP failed to take any cognizance for further period of six months and the OP No. 1 by letter dated 14/03/2002 informed the complainant that the issuance of Kisan Vikas Patras was itself irregular and therefore the complainant was not entitled to the maturity amount of Kisan Vikas Patra. However it requested the complainant to accept the payment of the said Kisan Vikas Patras at the same rate of interest which is paid by Post Office Saving Account. The complainant by letter dated 22/03/2002 refused to accept principal amount with simple rate of interest. The complainant specifically mentioned in the reply that the amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- was invested in the year 1996 only on the assurance of interest on the amount of investment as prescribed under the Kisan Vikas Patras Scheme. The OP at no point of time had sought any clarification nor had it communicated during the entire period of investment in respect of the irregular issuance or the status of the complainant.
The complainant was constrained to issue a legal notice on 6/6/2002 which was duly received to the OP. But it failed to take any cognizance. Under these circumstances, the complainant filed a consumer complaint and sought for payment of Rs. 25,54,000/- which was inclusive of the amount of maturity under the Kisan Vikas Patras (KVP), with interest, compensation and cost of proceedings.
The OPs resisted the complaint by filing their written version and did not dispute the facts mentioned in the complaint. The OPs however submitted that the Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India discontinued the investment by institution in KVP certificate with effect from 1/4/1995 vide GSR No. 119 (E) dated 8/3/1995 and therefore issued notification on amending the respective rule which has been published in Gazette of India. The said amendment in the rule was widely published by both electronic and print media. Therefore the chief officer of the Municipal Council (Institution) has no legal authority to purchase the KVP. The OPs however further submitted that the KVPs issued by the OP was in violation of the instructions issued by Ministry of Finance and therefore as per the guidelines issued by the department, the complainant was requested to accept the Principal amount with simple rate of interest. The complainant however has not given his consent and therefore the amount of the KVPs with simple rate of interest was not paid to the complainant. The OPs therefore denied to have rendered any deficiency in service and sought for dismissal of complaint.
The Forum after hearing both the sides and considering evidence brought on record and the authorities relied upon by both the parties, partly allowed the complaint as aforesaid.
The Forum has specifically held that the OP had rendered deficient service as it failed to inform the complainant about the inadvertence in issuing irregular KVPs throughout the period of investment. The Forum has further held that the KVPs were issued on 8/3/1996 that is after the date 1/4/1995 on which issuance of KVPs were prohibited to be issued in favour of Municipal Councils. The OPs should have known the rules while issuing the KVPs and in case of any irregular issuance, it should have been detected immediately and the complainant should have been informed at the earliest. The complainant should not suffer for the fault committed by the OP even if it is committed inadvertently. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the OPs have preferred this appeal.
The OPs/appellants have challenged the impugned order mainly on the ground that the rule pertaining to KVP was amended w.e.f 1/4/1995 which was published in official gazette on 8/3/1995. The complainant should have known this amendment and as a result it had no legal right to invest the amount of provident fund contribution in KVP and that the maturity amount of KVP which is contrary to the amendment cannot be made payable to the complainant which is not vested with any legal right to purchase KVP and earn interest thereon.
We heard counsel for both the sides. We also perused the written notes of arguments filed by both the parties. We further perused copies of the complaint, written version of OPs and the documents placed on record by both the parties.
The appellants advocate submitted in brief that the complainant had purchased the Kisan Vikas Patra (KVPs) contrary to the rules. Therefore no valid contract is said to have been entered into between the parties and therefore the complainant is not legally entitled to the maturity amount of the KVPs. The appellants however ascertained the fact that the KVP had been inadvertently issued by the subordinate authority/officer of the appellant. In case of irregular purchase of KVP, the purchaser is only entitled for receiving the principal amount remitted and not the maturity benefit. The appellants have relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujrat at Ahmadabad in the case of Devang Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Sub Post Master decided on 14/7/2004, in support of their aforesaid submission. It is held that in the said case that purchase or acquisition of Kisan Vikas Patra is due to bonafide error on the part of the holder thereof it may award payment of simple interest on the face value of the certificate. The holder of the Kisan Vikas Patra is authorized proper and regular and the error committed in purchase is bonafide. The issue involved in the present case is in respect of irregular issuance of KVP by the appellant. Therefore the ratio laid down in the above case is not applicable.
The advocate of respondent on the other hand has submitted in brief that the Kisan Vikas Patra cannot be said to be purchased irregularly as the appellants have failed in its duty to issue the same as per the amended rule of the Kisan Vikas Patra. The respondent by letter dated 2/3/1996 had requested for issuance of Kisan Vikas Patra for the total investment of Rs. 7,00,000/- The said letter was duly received by the appellants. The Kisan Vikas Patra came to be issued to the respondent only on 8/3/1996. The appellanta should have taken care to examine whether the Kisan Vikas Patra can be issued in the name of Chief Officer, Municipal Counsel, Kamptee as per the rules. The appellants kept complete silence during the complete period of investment, that is for 5 ½ years. It further consumed six more months to inform the respondent that he was not entitled to the maturity benefits. Irregular issuance of certificate of investment cannot entitle the appellant to enjoy the benefits of the deposits and then refuse the maturity benefit to the holder of the certificate.
The following authorities are relied upon by the learned advocate of respondent in support of their aforesaid submission.
UOI and others Vs. Monika Tandan and others. Reported in 1995(ii) CPJ 20 (NC). Wherein Hon'ble National Commission has held that :
" National Saving Certificates (NSCs) had been issued irregularity and in contravention of rules. The ends of justice demanded that interest to be paid to the holders."
M/s Bhagwati Vanaspati Traders Vs. Senior Supt. Of Post Offices reported in 2014 (6) ALL MR 915 (Supreme Court). It is held in the said case that National Saving Certificate (NSC) was issued in the name of sole Proprietorship concern and payment was refused on the ground that NSC could not have been issued in firm's name. It is held that firm being sole proprietary concern and irregularity committed while issuing NSC could have easily been corrected by substituting name of the appellant.
Superintendent of Post Offices, Mainpuri Division Vs. Town Area Committee Bwere, IV (2006)CPJ 215 (NC) In the said case National Saving Certificates (NSC) were issued by Post Office in contravention of Rules. But amount of maturity was not paid. Hence it was held that complainant is entitled to principal amount with compensation equal to interest payable on maturity of National Saving Certificates (NSCs) We perused the letter dated 2/3/1996 addressed to the appellant by the respondent requesting the appellant to issue the Kisan Vikas Patra. Undisputedly, the Kisan Vikas Patras (KVPs) were issued on 8/3/1996.
The only inference that can be drawn from the aforesaid letter is that the original complainant had requested appellants for issuance of Kisan Vikas Patras which must have been issued after due verification of the purchaser and the relevant rule. Therefore it cannot be presumed that the complainant/respondent was not the legal holder of the KVPs. The appellant has admitted that the KVPs were issued irregularly by inadvertence. The Forum has rightly held that the appellants had rendered deficiency in service by issuing the KVPs contrary to the rules. The inadvertence could have been accepted, had the appellants corrected or informed about the irregularity to the complainant prior to the date of maturity or immediately after the issuance of the certificates.
The judgment relied upon by the appellants advocate deals with the issue whether irregularity committed in purchase or holding of KVP by legally authorized holder thereof then only he will be entitled to benefit of proviso of rule 13 of KVP Rules 1988. The ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgments is not applicable in the present case as in the case in hand, the issue is in respect of irregular issuance of KVP and the entitlement of maturity benefit under it. The judgment relied upon deals with the entitlement of interest on the amount of investments in KVP.
It is not disputed that at the time of issuing KVPs in the name of complainant/respondent , the relevant rules had already become effective from 1/4/1995. The KVPs in question were issued subsequent to the said date that is on1/3/1996. The only logical presumption can be that the rules of the department are known to the functionaries of the post office, who are charged with the duty of issuing the KVPs and in case they are issued in utter disregards to the rules, the OP has committed deficiency in rendering service. The complainant cannot be made to suffer in that regard. Applying the above decisions (Para No. 11) to the identical facts and circumstances of present case we are of the reasoned opinion, that the complainant is entitled to compensation and interest on the investment. We find no infirmity or irregularity in the impugned order and the appeal deserves to be dismissed being devoid of merits. In the result, we pass the following order.
ORDER Appeal is dismissed.
The impugned order dated 2/2/2005, passed by the Addl. District Consumer Forum, Nagpur in consumer complaint bearing No. 154/2003 is confirmed.
No order as to cost.
Copy of order be furnished to both the parties, free of cost.
[HON'BLE MR. B.A.SHAIKH] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MRS. Jayshree Yengal] MEMBER