DIRECTOR OF SMALL SAVINGS vs P.RAMAN

PETITIONERS were opposite parties before the District Forum in a complaint filed by the respondent. Dispute pertained to claim of the complainant for the prize, being the Maruti Car "Omni" or 25 H.P. H.M.T. Tractor with a trailer which it is said he was entitled to on the basis of draw of the gift coupons and he being holder of the prize winning gift coupon bearing No.C.I. 0927371. It was under the scheme for savings announced by the Government of India for the mobilization of funds for developmental activities in a State. For this purpose, Tamil Nadu Government announced a District Level Gift Linked Savings Mobilisation Scheme under which free gift coupons were to be given to the investors for over Rs.500/- invested in a particular scheme.

SINCE neither the Omni Van nor the Tractor was given to the respondent, he filed a complaint with the District Forum. He had invested Rs.5,000/- in time deposit for a period of 5 years by giving necessary and requisite application in the Branch Post Office in his village. He was issued a passbook and he was also given gift coupons. In the draw held Ticket No.C.I. 0927371 was declared to be the winner of the bumper prize either Maruti Omni Van or 25 H.P. H.M.T. Tractor. Prize was denied to the complainant on the ground that there was one another person by the same name Raman of the same village who also happened to have invested Rs.5,000/- and was given a pass book and it was stated that it was he who was the holder of the prize winning ticket in C.I. series. Complainant said that he was though not present in the draw, but he came to know of his first prize winning ticket. He said his prize winning ticket was taken away by Block Development Officer and Tahsildar along with the passbook for verification and few days thereafter pass book was returned to him and he was promised that the 1st prize would be given to him in due course. Since nothing happened, he approached the Collector and made him a petition but there was no response. In view of the stand taken by the petitioners/opposite parties that there was an other person of the same name and it was he who was the real holder of the prize winning ticket and that on that account complainant has been denied the prize, complaint was dismissed by the District Forum.

THE matter came in appeal before the State Commission by the complainant. State Commission observed that at the fag end of the hearing of the arguments they made inquiry and it was found that the other Raman of the same name as the complainant had also not been given the prize if he was holder of the prize winning ticket. This led the State Commission to make enquiries. The case was re-opened and witnesses examined with full opportunity given to all the parties. State Commission examined 4 witnesses namely CW1, S. Ramesh, Assistant, Panchayat Union, Palladam. CW2, A. Sridharan, Co-operative Sub-Registrar, serving as Lecturer in Ramalingam Co-operative Institute, Coimbatore. CW3, E. Sarkar, Sub-Post Master, Sulthanpet. CW4, Mr. K. Balasubramaniam, Block Development Officer. During recording the evidence, it was noticed that a Register was kept in the office of the Collectorate pertaining to distribution of gift coupons under the savings scheme pertaining to CH and CI series.

IT was not disputed that the prize-winning coupon bears the No.CI 0927371. In the gift coupon register maintained by the Collectorate all details as to the name and address of the person to whom the gift coupon of a particular series is issued, the number of such coupons etc., were mentioned. The moment the draw of lot is over, the prize winning number coupon will be verified with the gift coupon issue register kept in the Collectorate and the name and address of the holder of the prize winning coupon will be ascertained and same will be announced through mike in public and the same number is then published in the newspapers. State Commission required the production of the said register. It was not produced. State Commission thereafter recorded that after the arguments were completed and the order was being dictated, a request was made on behalf of the petitioners for adjournment for a week to file additional affidavit of the Collector of the District. On the adjourned date, it was stated by the counsel that no affidavit on behalf of the Collector was being filed. As regards production of gift coupon issue register, time was sought by the counsel and the matter was adjourned on the counsel for the petitioner making following statement :- "This Hon''ble Court directed us to produce the Gift Coupon Issue Register. The official for R2 seeks time to search for the same the office Collectorate. It is respectfully, prayed that this Hon''ble Court may be pleased to adjourn the case for two weeks and thus render justice. Sd/- Advocate for R1 and 2"

In spite of as many as three adjournments that register was not produced and on the last adjourned date, Counsel appearing for first and second petitioner made the following statement : "Sir, I respectfully submit that the Gift Coupon Issue Rregister for the relevant period is not traceable for the present, as per the instructions. Sd/- Counsels for Respondents 1 and 2"

State Commission was, therefore, right in raising adverse presumption against the petitioners for their not having produced the register which was relevant to the issue involved. State Commission after examining the whole aspect of the matter with reference to the statement of the witnesses and the documents came to the conclusion that it was the complainant/respondent who was the holder of the prize winning ticket and he has been wrongly denied the prize.

In this context, State Commission made strong observations against the petitioners for depriving poor villager of his prize to which he was lawfully entitled.

IT has been submitted before us that State Commission was not correct in passing strictures against the petitioners as that create an impression that the State Commission had a bias against them and had a demoralizing effect on them. State Commission has no doubt used some harsh words against the officials who are the petitioners before us and were also the parties in the proceedings. Considering the mental agony and harassment suffered by a poor villager the State Commission did pass severe stricture which were perhaps not quite appropriate and we, therefore, delete the following observations made in the impugned order :- "that Collector was unable to decipher the fraud committed by the subordinate menials either as a consequence of his being put in charge of work beyond his capacity or because of his incompetencey to hold the post."

ON merit it was said that it was under some mistake that duplicate coupons for C.I. series for one deposit were issued to the complainant to which he was not entitled. We will not take of any such argument in the absence of the gift coupon issue register and when such a defence did not find mention in the impugned order. After examining the whole matter, we do not find any error in the impugned order of the State Commission for us to take a different view. The petitioner is therefore, dismissed with cost which we assess at Rs.5,000/-. The cost will be payable to the respondent/complainan.. Earlier in this case, arguments were heard and order reserved but then it was found that the petitioner needed further examination. Today when the matter was taken up for argument nobody appeared for the petitioner.