Supreme Court of India
THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICE, BOLANGIR DIVISION, BOLANGIR, ODISHA versus JAMBU KUMAR JAIN on 2 March 2020
[2020] 2 S.C.R.
ATHE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICE, BOLANGIRDIVISION, BOLANGIR, ODISHA
v.
JAMBU KUMAR JAIN
B(Civil Appeal Nos. 1894-1895 of 2020 Etc.)
MARCH 02, 2020
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND VINEET SARAN, JJ.]
Consumer Protection – Deficiency in service on part of thePost Office – Claim of – The father of the respondent – complainantCpurchased 88 Indira Vikas Patras of the denomination ofRs. 5000/- each – The IVPs were lost – A police complaint waslodged alleging theft of these IVPs – It was contended that despitedemands made by the complainant, the value of the lost IVPs wasnot being made over by the Post Office to him and as such, thereDwas deficiency in service on part of the Post Office – The Districtforum directed the Post Office to release payment of the maturityvalue of 88 IVPs – The view taken by the District Forum was acceptedby the National Commission – On appeal, held: It is not in disputethat IVPs in the instant case were purchased through cash – At nostage, the identity of purchaser was thus disclosed or registeredEwith the Department – The matter has to be considered purely fromthe perspective of the governing Rules – If in case the IVPs are lost/stolen or mutilated or defaced beyond recognition, the Rules areclear that they shall not be replaced by the Post Office – In the faceof such statutory provision, the refusal on the part of the DepartmentFto entertain any request for maturity sum was absolutely right andjustified – It can never be said that there was deficiency on the partof the Department in rendering any service expected of them – IndiraVikas Patra Rules, 1986 – r. 5.
Disposing of the appeals, the CourtG
HELD: 1. In terms of Rule 5 of the Indira Vikas Patra Rules,1986 IVPs could be purchased at any Post Office after paymentin cash or by a Cheque/Pay Order or Demand Draft and no formalapplication was necessary for such purchase. As against paymentmade in Cash, the IVPs would be delivered immediately while in H
respect of payments made either through Cheque or Pay Orderor Demand Draft, the same would be issued only after theencashment of any of those instruments.In terms of Rule6(4), IVPs were transferable. According to Rule 7(1), if theCertificate was mutilated or defaced, the bearer would be entitledto have it replaced on payment of fee of rupee one but if thecertificate was lost or stolen or mutilated or defaced or destroyedbeyond recognition, in terms of Rule 7(2) it would not be replacedby any Post Office. [Para 11][1154 C-E]
2. It is not in dispute that the IVPs in the present matterwere purchased through cash. At no stage, the identity of thepurchaser was thus disclosed or registered with the Department.In a situation, where the IVPs were purchased either throughCheque of Pay Order or Demand Draft, there would still be apossibility, through link evidence, to establish the identity of thepurchaser but in case of a purchase through the modality of cash,there would be nothing on record which could establish theidentity of the purchaser.
It may be that there are no claims in respect of the IVPs inquestion but that does not mean that any person can claimmaturity sum in respect of such IVPs and offer an indemnity. [Para12][1154 E-G]
3. The matter has to be considered purely from theperspective of the governing Rules. If in case the IVPs are lost/stolen or mutilated or defaced beyond recognition, the Rules areclear that they shall not be replaced by the Post Office. In theface of such statutory provision, the refusal on the part of theDepartment to entertain any request for maturity sum wasabsolutely right and justified. It can never be said that there wasdeficiency on the part of the Department in rendering any serviceexpected of them. [Para 13][1154-H; 1155 A-B]
4. If the Department had refused to encash the Certificatesupon presentation or even after encashment had refused to makethe payment or had made short payment, there could still be agrievance about deficiency in service but if the Certificatesthemselves are lost and the identity of the initial holder could AB
C
D
E
F
G
H
Anever be established through the record, the Department waswell within its rights not to accept the prayer for return of thematurity sum. [Para 13][1155 B-C]
Central Government of India and Others v. KrishnajiParvetesh Kulkarni (2006) 4 SCC 275 : [2006] 3 SCR927 – relied on.B
Case Law Reference
[2006] 3 SCR 927relied onPara 14
CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1894-1895 of 2020.C
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.09.2018 in RevisionPetition No. 2116 of 2018 and 11.10.2018 in Review Application No.355 of 2018 in Revision Petition No. 2116 of 2018 passed by NationalConsumer Disputes Redressal Commission at New Delhi.
WithD
Civil Appeal Nos. 1896-1897 of 2020.
R. Balasubramanian, Sr. Adv., Ms. Aankansha Kaul, DeepakGoeal, Raj Bahadur Yadav and Gurmeet Singh Makker, Advs. for theAppellant.
ES. B. Upadhyay, Sr. Adv., L. Mohapatra and Parijat Kishore, Advs.for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1894-1895 OF 2020F
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 16164-16165 of 2019)
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
2
Decisions referred to
In this index
2
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals arise out of the final judgment and order dated11.09.2018 passed by the National Commission[1] in Revision PetitionGNo.2116 of 2018 and order dated 11.10.2018 in Review ApplicationNo.355 of 2018 preferred in the aforesaid revision petition.
3. Complaint, being CDC No.43 of 2015 was filed by therespondent herein before the District Forum[2] contending inter alia that 88 Indira Vikas Patras (‘IVP’, for short) of the denomination of H1 National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi 2 District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bolangir, Odisha Rs. 5000/- each, purchased by the father of the complainant sometimeduring the period 1996 to 1998, were lost in the month of June 2001. Apolice complaint was lodged on 25.06.2001 alleging theft of those IVPsand thereafter by intimation dated 14.07.2001 a request was made tothe Superintendent of Post Offices, Bolangir to stop payment of anyamount upon maturity of the IVPs without proper verification of theholder. It was further submitted that despite demands made by thecomplainant, the value of the lost IVPs was not being made over by thePost Office to him and as such, there was deficiency in service on partof the Post Office. With the aforesaid allegations, the following principalreliefs were claimed in the complaint:
“(i) The O.P. be directed to pay the maturity value of 88 numbersof IVP of Rs.5,000/- each denomination = Rs.8,80,000/- and dueinterest till final payment is made,
(ii) A sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as claimed as compensation fordeficiency in service and loss caused to the complaint andRs.10,000/- is claimed towards the cost of litigation”
4. In its reply, the appellant submitted that in terms of Indira VikasPatra Rules, 1986, (‘the Rules’, for short), no formal application wasnecessary to purchase the IVPs and in case the IVPs were purchasedby cash, the identity of the purchaser would not be recorded by the PostOffice in any document nor any receipt would be issued at the time ofissuance of the IVPs, that all the IVPs were bearer instruments likecurrency notes; that there was no proof or evidence that any considerationwas paid by the complainant; and that the complainant could not betermed as a “consumer” within the meaning of the Act[3]. It was furthersubmitted that the Rules were binding on the Department and since ithad acted purely in terms of the Rules, there was no deficiency on itspart.
5. The aforesaid complaint was allowed by the District forumvide its order dated 30.03.2016 and it was directed as under:
“We hereby direct the O.P. to release payment of the maturityvalue of 88 nos. of IVPs bearing No.63C 113623 to 113666 and3515 to 3558 and 113667 to 113710 and 3559 to 3602 respectivelyamounting to Rs. 8,80,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakh Eighty thousand)only, to the petitioner after furnishment of an indemnity bond from 3 The Consumer Protection Act, 1986
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Athe petitioner within thirty-five days of this order. Non compliancewill attract a penalty of Rs.20 per day till realization.”
6. The appellant being aggrieved filed Appeal No.356 of 2016before the State Commission[4], which was dismissed by the StateCommission on the ground of non-prosecution. The matter was carriedBfurther by filing Revision Petition No.2116 of 2018 before the NationalCommission.
7. The submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant wererecorded as under:
“The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that sinceCinception the Respondent is not a Consumer and no deficiency inservice has been committed on the part of the Petitioner and theComplaint of the Respondent is not maintainable. As per Rule7(2) and 10 of the IVP Rules, 1986, the Respondent is not entitledto any claim and hence his claim has been rejected by theDDepartment.”
However, the view taken by the District Forum was accepted bythe National Commission. It was observed in order dated 11.09.2018:
“The Respondent’s Father had purchased 88 IVPs for a totalamount of Rs.8.8 lakhs. The same were lost and a PoliceEComplaint was filed. The claim of the Respondent on maturitywas rejected. Several years have elapsed and the amount depositedstill lies with the Postal Department. So far there appears no otherclaimant for the amount. It certainly cannot be the case of thePetitioner to appropriate the entire amount forever, since the lostdocuments has not been submitted to them. It is but fair andFreasonable that after proper verification and taking due precautionslike idemnity bond etc., the Department after securing its interests,should at least pay the maturity value to the Respondent, afterhaving not succeeded in the several rounds of litigation. ThisCommission way back in the year 2002, in a matter of similarGnature has elaborately discussed the issues and directed thedepartment to release the money, as sufficient time had elapsedsince the date of maturity. Therefore, it clearly appears that thereis no error in the order passed by the District Forum.”
H4 State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttak, Odisha
8. Thereafter, Review Application No.355 of 2018 was preferredby the appellant. However, said Review Application was also dismissedby the National Commission vide order dated 11.10.2018.
9. The aforesaid two orders passed by the National Commissionare presently under appeal before us. We have heard Mr. R.Balasubramanian, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant andMr. S.B. Upadhyay, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent. It wassubmitted by Mr. Upadhyay that in the present matter, the value in respectof the IVPs in question had not been claimed by any other person and inany case the respondent was willing to furnish any indemnity bond thatin case any claim were to surface, he would indemnify the Department.
10. Before we consider the matter, we must set-out the relevantRules. The Rules were issued vide Ministry of Finance (DEA) NotificationNo.G.S.R. 1183(E) dated 05.11.1986. Rules 5, 6 and 7 of the Rules, asamended from time to time, are as under:
“5 Procedure for purchase of certificates: (1) A certificatemay be purchased at a Post Office on payment of any one of thefollowing modes, namely:
(i) by cash; or
(ii) by locally executed cheque, pay order or demand draft drawnin favour of the Postmaster; or
(iii) by presenting a duly signed withdrawal form or cheque withthe Pass Book for withdrawal from Post Office Savings Accountstanding in the credit of the purchaser at the same Post Office.
2. No formal application is necessary for purchase of a certificate.
6. Issue of Certificate: (1) On payment being made by cash, acertificate shall be issued immediately and date of such certificateshall be the date of payment.
(2) Where payment for purchase of a certificate is made by locallyexecuted cheque, pay order or demand draft, the certificate shallnot be issued before the proceeds of the cheque, pay order ordemand draft, as the case may be, are realised and the date ofsuch certificate shall be the date of encashment of the cheque,pay order or demand draft, as the case may be.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
A(3) If, for any reason, a certificate cannot be issued immediately,a provisional receipt shall be given to the purchaser which maylater be exchanged for a certificate and the date of such certificateshall be as specified in sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (2), as the casemay be.
B(4) A certificate issued under this rule is transferable.
7. Replacement of certificate: (1) If a certificate is mutilatedor defaced, the bearer is entitled for replacement form the PostOffice of issue on payment of fee of rupee one.
(2) A certificate lost, stolen, mutilated, defaced or destroyed beyondCrecognition, will not be replaced by any Post Office.”
11. In terms of Rule 5 of the Rules, IVPs could be purchased atany Post Office after payment in cash or by a Cheque/Pay Order orDemand Draft and no formal application was necessary for suchpurchase. As against payment made in Cash, the IVPs would be deliveredDimmediately while in respect of payments made either through Chequeor Pay Order or Demand Draft, the same would be issued only after theencashment of any of those instruments. In terms of Rule 6(4), IVPswere transferable. According to Rule 7(1), if the Certificate was mutilatedor defaced, the bearer would be entitled to have it replaced on paymentEof fee of rupee one but if the certificate was lost or stolen or mutilated ordefaced or destroyed beyond recognition, in terms of Rule 7(2) it wouldnot be replaced by any Post Office.
12. It is not in dispute that the IVPs in the present matter werepurchased through cash. At no stage, the identity of the purchaser wasFthus disclosed or registered with the Department. In a situation, wherethe IVPs were purchased either through Cheque of Pay Order or DemandDraft, there would still be a possibility, through link evidence, to establishthe identity of the purchaser but in case of a purchase through the modalityof cash, there would be nothing on record which could establish theidentity of the purchaser.GIt may be that there are no claims in respect of the IVPs in questionbut that does not mean that any person can claim maturity sum in respectof such IVPs and offer an indemnity.
13. The matter has to be considered purely from the perspectiveof the governing Rules. If in case the IVPs are lost/stolen or mutilatedH
or defaced beyond recognition, the Rules are clear that they shall not bereplaced by the Post Office. In the face of such statutory provision, therefusal on the part of the Department to entertain any request for maturitysum was absolutely right and justified. It can never be said that therewas deficiency on the part of the Department in rendering any serviceexpected of them.
If the Department had refused to encash the Certificates uponpresentation or even after encashment had refused to make the paymentor had made short payment, there could still be a grievance aboutdeficiency in service but if the Certificates themselves are lost and theidentity of the initial holder could never be established through the record,the Department was well within its rights not to accept the prayer forreturn of the maturity sum.
14. In Central Government of India and others vs. KrishnajiParvetesh Kulkarni[5], similar prayer made through a writ petition, wasrejected by this Court with following observations:- “An IVP is akin to an ordinary currency note. It bears no name ofthe holder. Just as a lost currency note cannot be replaced, similarlythe question of replacing a lost IVP does not arise. Rule 7(2)makes the position clear that a certificate lost, stolen, mutilated,defaced or destroyed beyond recognition will not be replaced byany post office. Similar is the position as regards the certificatewhich is either lost or stolen. Undisputedly there was no challengeto the legality of the rule 7(2). In the absence of a challenge to theprovision, any direction should not really have been given. It isfundamental that no direction which is contrary to law can begiven.”
15. In our view, the District Forum and the National Commissioncompletely erred in accepting the claim. We, therefore, allow theseappeals, set-aside the view taken by the National Commission and dismissthe original complaint. No costs.
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.1896-1897 OF 2020
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos.16166-16167 of 2019)
16. Leave granted.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
A17. These appeals arise out of the final judgment and order dated11.09.2018 passed by the National Commission in Revision PetitionNo.2117 of 2018 and order dated 11.10.2018 in Review ApplicationNo.356 of 2018 preferred in the aforesaid revision petition.
18. In this case, 160 IVPs of the denomination of Rs.5000/- each,Bwere stated to have been lost and the claimant in this case and theclaimant in the earlier matter are members of the same family. Similarrelief was granted by the District Forum and the National Commission,which orders are presently under appeal before us.
19. It is somewhat strange that only the IVPs were lost in bothCthe cases by the family and no other instrument was lost. Be that as itmay, for the reasons recorded in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (Civil)Nos.16164-16165 of 2019, these appeals also deserve to be allowed.
20. We, therefore, allow these appeals, set-aside the view takenby the National Commission and dismiss the original complaint. No costs.
D
Ankit Gyan
Appeals disposed of.
E
F
G
H