State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mohan Lal vs Sub Post Master on 5 May, 2017
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
Consumer Complaint No.130 of 2015
Date of institution : 03.06.2015
Date of decision : 05.05.2017
Mohan Lal son of Sh. Milkhi Ram, R/o House No.167, New Jawahar
Nagar, Jalandhar, through attorney Smt. Brij Mohni wife of late Sh.
Charan Dass, R/o House No.167, New Jawahar Nagar, Jalandhar.
....Complainant
Versus
1. Sub Post Master (L.S.G.) Bahera Road, P.O. Patiala.
2. Superintendent of Post, G.P.O., Patiala.
3. Senior Superintendent of Post, G.P.O., Jalandhar.
4. Sub Post Master, Sub Post Office, Rago Majra, Patiala, District
Patiala.
....Opposite Parties
Consumer Complaint under Section 17 of
the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President
Mr. Harcharan Singh Guram, Member.
Present:-
For the complainant : Sh. Ashok Giri, Advocate For the opposite parties: Sh. R.P. Singh, Advocate. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT :
The complainant has filed this complaint, under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, through his attorney Smt. Brij Mohini W/o Late Sh. Charan Dass.
2. Brief facts, as set out in the complaint, are that the complainant is 80 years old person. The Kisan Vikas Patras (in short, "KVPs"), fully detailed in Para No.2 of the complaint, were issued by opposite parties No.1 & 4 on 08.08.2005 & 09.08.2015, having maturity Consumer Complaint No.130 of 2015 2 period of 8 years and 7 months and maturity value of ₹48,40,000/-. He, along with one Shiv Kumar, is holder of KVPs Type-B, issued by opposite parties No.1 & 4, which were issued to two adult individuals and were payable to either of the holder or the survivor. After the maturity period, the complainant approached the opposite parties on 24.04.2015 and 27.04.2015, for the release of the maturity value of the said KVPs, but they put off the matter on one pretext or the other and ultimately refused to pay requisite amount. The complainant served legal notice dated 05.05.2015 upon them, but they failed to make the payment. However, reply to the legal notice on behalf of opposite parties No.2 & 3 was received on 30.05.2015. It was further averred that at the time of reinvestment of the above said KVPs, the complainant clearly told the opposite parties that he is an NRI and the opposite parties stated that there was no bar in issuing KVPs to the complainant, being NRI. The said KVPs were purchased by the complainant, in continuance of his previous investment since 1984. The complainant has been harassed and humiliated by the opposite parties by not releasing the maturity value of the KVPs, in question, for which they are liable to pay compensation to him. He has, thus, sought the following directions to the opposite parties:
i) to release the maturity value of the KVPs i.e. ₹48,40,000/-;
ii) to pay ₹50,000/-, towards harassment, mental torture and agony suffered by the complainant; and
iii) to pay ₹10,000/-, as litigation expenses. Consumer Complaint No.130 of 2015 3
3. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed reply to the complaint, taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable and the complainant has suppressed the material facts. As per clause 6 (3) of Kisan Vikas Patras Rules, 1988, a Non-Resident India is not eligible to purchase the KVPs in India. The complaint is also not maintainable on the ground that one set of KVPs was issued in the joint name of complainant, along with Sh. Shiv Kumar Sharma, and the other set of KVPs was issued in the name of the complainant, along with Sh. Raj Kishan. The complaint has been filed only by the complainant and not by other two persons. The complainant deliberately and intentionally has not disclosed the fact that he was an NRI since 1950 and represented himself to be an Indian Resident, by mentioning the address of Patiala. It was further pleaded that there appears to be a family dispute in this case, as the complainant sent e- mail from UK to Sh. Jaspal Singh, the then Sub Post Master, Bahera Road, Patiala on 22.04.2013, saying that his son Shiv Kumar or his son's wife Geeta Sharma could encash or make an attempt to get encashed the KVPs, purchased on 08.08.2005, by wrongly reporting the same to be lost. He requested not to make payment of KVPs to any person. On merits, the opposite parties admitted the factum of issuance of the KVPs, fully detailed in Para No.2 of the reply on merits. It was further pleaded that the total value of the KVPs was ₹34,50,000/-. The investment made by him is irregular. The complainant and Shiv Kumar were joint holders of the KVPs. In some of the KVPs, the complainant, along with Raj Kishan, was also one of Consumer Complaint No.130 of 2015 4 the co-depositor. The fact regarding the complainant being NRI came to the notice of the opposite parties, only when the complainant submitted one affidavit, which was executed and notarized in United Kingdom, wherein he admitted that he is British citizen and is residing in UK since 1950. He worked in UK since 1950 and is also getting State pension from UK after his retirement. Therefore, he is entitled to only face value of the KVPs and not the maturity value and as and when he approached the Post Office, he was advised accordingly. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Other allegations of the complaint were denied and it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.
4. To prove his claim, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavits of Smt. Brij Mohni and Sh. Raj Kumar Ex.C-A and Ex.C-B, along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6 (colly.).
5. On the other hand, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of S.D. Sheikh, Senior Supdt. as Ex.OP/A, affidavit of Jaspal Singh, Postal Assistant as Ex.OP-7, along with documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-6 & Ex.OP-8. Learned counsel for the opposite parties also made a statement on 15.06.2016 to the effect that the record of the KVPs purchased by the complainant in the year 1984-85 and 1994-95 is not available with the opposite parties, as the same has been weeded out by the department, as per the instructions of the Government/Department of Posts under the relevant Rules, whereby the journals of the certificates issued and discharged are to be kept for a period of 18 months after its discharge. Stock register of the Consumer Complaint No.130 of 2015 5 certificates is to be preserved for a period of 10 years and the applications for purchase or transfer of certificates, in lieu of which duplicate certificates have been issued or have not been issued, are to be preserved for a period of 10 years after its maturity. Application forms for purchase of KVPs purchased by the complainant in the year 2005 are available and the same are annexed as Ex.OP-5.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully.
7. Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently contended that it is not the fault of the complainant, as far as the issuance of the KVPs in question is concerned. He had paid the amount and jointly took the KVPs from the opposite parties on 08.08.2005 & 09.08.2015 under reinvestment and it was for the opposite parties to raise such like objection of NRI at that point of time, but they did not raise any such objection at the relevant time. Even otherwise, there is no such column in the proforma submitted to the complainant, before the issuance of the KVPs. The complainant has invested his hard earned money in the KVPs with the opposite parties, but for non-payment of the maturity value thereof, he has been harassed. Therefore, he is entitled to the maturity value of the KVPs, in question, along with compensation and costs.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite parties contended that the purchase of the KPVs, in question, is against the KVP Rules, 1988 and as per clause 6 (3) of those Rules, the KVPs cannot be issued to an NRI. The complainant is British citizen and, Consumer Complaint No.130 of 2015 6 thus, he was not eligible to purchase the KPVs in India. The claim of the complainant has been rightly rejected, so far as the maturity value of the KPVs, in question, is concerned.
9. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. Admittedly, the KVPs Ex.C-6 (colly.) were purchased by the complainant, along with other persons, which he could not purchase legally, being an NRI. No doubt, the complainant purchased the same in contravention of Rule 6 (3) of the KVP Rules, 1988, but for the purchase/sale of the KVPs, the complainant as well as opposite parties both are equally at fault. Their fault is writ large on the record. The complainant should have been informed by the opposite parties at the time of issuance of the KVPs in question that the joint KVPs of B- Type cannot be issued to a Non-Resident Indian. It was the duty of the opposite parties to specifically make aware the complainant about the factum of non-issuance of KVPs to an NRI at that time. Even the learned counsel for the opposite parties failed to point out any such column in the forms, on the basis of which the KVPs were issued. Be that as it may, but the fact remains that the opposite parties have been harassing the complainant by not making the payment of the amount of the KPVs, in question, for a sufficient long time. Non-payment of interest on the amount of KVPs will also certainly be loss to the complainant. We are of the view that if the full maturity value of the KVPs cannot be paid to the complainant, at least the complainant is Consumer Complaint No.130 of 2015 7 entitled to the principal amount of the KVPs, in question, along with Saving Bank interest rate. This Commission in Senior Post Master & Anr. v. Ashok Kumar Arora & Anr. First Appeal No.1392 of 2007, decided on 06.10.2009, observed in Para No.11 as follows:
11. Since the Consumer Fora under the Consumer Protection Act are justice-oriented Courts shorn of all 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 extreme views, on the basis of equitable justice. Neither the interest was paid which was permissible at the KVPs 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 Consumer Complaint No.130 of 2015 8 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. Perusal of the KVPs reveals that at the time of discharge, the opposite parties only obtained the signatures of the complainant, Mohan Lal, on the receipt of discharge. In some of the KVPs, the name of Shiv Kumar Sharma and in some of the KVPs, the name of Raj Kishan appears, along with the name of the complainant. In these circumstances, to safeguard their interest, the opposite parties are at liberty to ask the complainant to submit indemnity bond of the equivalent amount to be received by the complainant.
12. Keeping in view the proposition of law as laid down in the above noted authority, the present complaint is partly accepted and the opposite parties are directed to pay the principal amount of KVPs, in question, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of deposit till realization.
13. It is made clear that the complainant shall produce the original KVPs before the opposite parties and if the same are not traceable, he can ask for the duplicate and after completion of requisite formalities, the payable amount shall be paid by the opposite parties to him within 30 days of the receipt of the certified copy of this order. However, the opposite parties are at liberty to ask the complainant to Consumer Complaint No.130 of 2015 9 submit the indemnity bond of the equivalent amount to be received by him, since the names of other persons appear on the KPVs.
14. The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe, due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT (HARCHARAN SINGH GURAM) MEMBER May 05, 2017.
(Gurmeet S)