CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL, PUNJAB vs DARSHAN SINGH

THIS revision petition has been filed against the impugned order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh in Appeal No. 1246 of 2001 dated 23.5.2005.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the impugned order. In this case, one Sarup Singh had purchased certain Kisan Vikas Patras (for short KVPs) from the post office maturing between 22.8.1999 and 19.8.2001. Sarup Singh was missing since 4.12.1996. Police was informed on 10.12.1996. Darshan Singh son of Sarup Singh and Gian Kaur wife of Sarup Singh on 29.3.2000 being nominee of KVPs, prayed for renewal since the KVPs had matured.

The opposite party contested the matter on the grounds that the complaint was pre-mature as seven years had not elapsed and the complainants were only the nominees and secondly KVPs could not be renewed on the request of any person other than the purchaser/named holder of KVPs and, as such, the petitioner were not entitled to claim any interest.

THE District Forum accepted the prayer of renewal and directed the opposite party accordingly. On appeal the learned State Commission ordered that the KVPs matured after 5 years and since the period of 7 years would lapse after the date of reporting of the person missing, the Director General''s Instruction No. 11 would not be applicable. The Instruction No. 11 reads as under: "Settlement of claims relating to certificates held in the names of persons who are unheard of for more than 7 years-(i) These persons are treated as dead and their claims are settled like claims filed on behalf of deceased holders. In such cases the date after the completion of seven years from the date of which the person was reported to be missing, is taken as the date of his death. The matured value of certificate (face value plus interest occurred thereon up to the date completed year or half year, as the case may be, prior to the death of the deceased holder) should be taken into account for determining the limit of various sanctioning authorities.

FIRSTLY, these instructions are just in the nature of guidelines, which are to be applied with some solution-oriented approach and not with an idea to harass the nominees of such missing persons. Any Judge or the Consumer Fora could not sit with folded hands in any helpless situations to deny substantial justice in between the parties. In such circumstances, the Consumer Fora or a Judge has to try and should see that the objectives of the rules and regulations or any statutory provisions are achieved and not defeated by adopting literal and dis-spirited approach. If this Instruction No. 11 is seen in this light then there should not have been any difficulty in renewing the KVPs for another period as was being prayed for irrespective of the fact whether Sarup Singh could be deemed to be dead or alive. There could not be any dispute about the proposition that Sarup Singh was found missing since 4.12.1996 and has not been heard since then. But 7 years undisputedly were not completed before filing of the complaint. On this basis, it was claimed that the complaint was pre-mature and the complainants could not file the complaint. This is one aspect. But, another aspect is that after expiry of the period in case the nominees do not act within a period of two years, it could be said that the claim had become time-barred. In such a situation and in order to do substantial justice, we feel that this technical objection has to be rejected in the best interest of the missing person, nominees and substantial justice. In the aforementioned situation seen from another perspective, if the KVPs have not been renewed and the money remained with the petitioners, and if no interest could be paid, then later part of the Instruction No. 11 would be rendered meaningless in absence of any specific rule or instruction which may deal with the case of KVPs holder who might die before the date of maturity and where the 7 years have not expired and the person is unheard of. If the interest is to be calculated on the maturity value of the certificate to the date of completed year or half year then the instruction has been issued with an intention to provide for such a situation.

BESIDES, since the KVPs and the matured value of the KVPs had been retained by the petitioners, even in the absence of agreement, there is an obligation arising out of a situation resembling a contract covered by the provisions of second part of Section 73 of the Contract Act. It may be mentioned that the deposit was not gratuitous. It may be further mentioned that Section 72 of the Contract Act further provides that a person to whom money has been paid, or anything delivered, by mistake or under coercion, must repay or return it. It would be worthwhile to quote the second part of Section 73, which provides for the consequences in such like matters. "Compensation for failure to discharge obligation resembling those created by contract-When an obligation resembling those created by contract has been incurred and has not been discharged, any person injured by the failure to discharge it is entitled to receive the same compensation from the party in default, as if such person had contracted to discharge it and had broken his contract. Explanation.-In estimating the loss or damage arising from a breach of contract, the means which existed of remedying the inconvenience caused by the non-performance of the contract must be taken into account.

IF it is not a contract at least retaining amount of maturity of KVPs would create an obligation resembling those created by a contract. In such circumstances, the petitioners would be liable to pay interest on the principal amount under Section 72 of the Contract Act and the rate of interest would be the same in view of the explanation to second part of Section 73 of the Contract Act. Of course, insofar as the principal amount is concerned, the nominees would be entitled to receive the same for the benefit of all the legal representatives. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is evident that the order passed by the learned State Commission, Punjab is absolutely just and equitable in the given situation and the respondent/complainant would be entitled to the maturity amount of KVPs and would be entitled to interest at the same rate of interest as is applicable to the post office saving accounts on the maturity amount of KVPs from the date of maturity till the date of payment.

For the aforesaid reasons, we uphold and confirm the order passed by the learned State Commission, Punjab. The revision petition dismissed accordingly. Revision Petition dismissed