Post Master & 2 Ors. vs Sudhir Kumar Pandey

The complainant / respondent purchased two Kisan Vikas Patra of Rs.10,000 each from the sub post office, Bijpur on 23.3.1990. The Kisan Vikas Patra were to mature on 23.9.1995. On 19.12.1990, the complainant informed the post office as well as the police that the aforesaid Kisan Vikas Patras had been lost. When the complainant approached the post office on the maturity date, he was informed that the said Kisan Vikas Patras had already been encashed on 10.2.1992 from another post office. Being aggrieved, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint.

The District Forum having ruled in favour of the complainant, the petitioners approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal also having been dismissed, the petitioners are before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.

It is an admitted position that the two Kisan Vikas Patras in the denomination of Rs.10,000/- each were issued to the complainant by Bijpur sub post office on 23.3.1990. It is also not in dispute that on 19.12.1990, the issuing post office i.e. sub post office Bijpur was informed by the complainant that the aforesaid Kisan Vikas Patras had been lost. At a later date he also requested the post office to issue duplicate Kisan Vikas Patras but since same had, in the meanwhile, already been encashed, through another post office on 10.12.1992, no duplicates were issued to him.

The only question which arises for consideration is as to whether the petitioners were negligent in encashing the Kisan Vikas Patras on 10.12.1992 from another post office despite Bijpur sub post office having already been informed on 19.12.1990 that the original Kisan Vikas Patras had been lost.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since not only the Kisan Vikas Patras condition the identity slips had been pre-signed by the complainant, the other post office which had no intimation of the loss of the Kisan Vikas Patras, was justified in encashing the same. Rule 11 of the Kisan Vikas Patras Rules 1988 on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner reads as under:

"11. Place of encashment: A certificate shall be encashable at the post office of its issue:

Provided that a certificate may be encashed at any other post office if the Officer-in-charge of that post office is satisfied on production of identity slip or on verification from the post office of issue that the person presenting the certificate for encashment is entitled thereto".

It would thus be seen that originally, a Kisan Vikas Patra is to be encashed at the post office of its issue and another post office can encash the same only if the officer incharge of the said post office is satisfied, on production of identity slip or on verification from the post office of issue that the person presenting the certificate for encashment was entitled thereto. Thus, it was necessary for the officer incharge of the other post office to satisify himself with respect to the identity of the person, seeking encashment of the Kisan Vikas Patras, before acceding to the request for their encashment. No material has been placed by the petitioner on record to show how and in what manner the officer incharge of the other post office had satisfied himself with respect to the identity of the person, who sought premature encashment of the Kisan Vikas Patras. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the identity slip pre-signed by the complainant itself was sufficient to verify the identity of the holder, at the time encashment was sought. I however, cannot accept the said contention. The identity slip was pre-signed and was not signed in the presence of officer incharge of the other post office. The least expected from him to verify the identity of the holder was to take a proof of his identity, other than the identity slip or atleast ask him to sign in his presence, so that he could compare and verify the signatures of the person, seeking encashment of the certificates with the signatures made on the certificate. That obviously was not done. Had such an attempt been made, the officer incharge of the other post office would have immediately come to know that the person seeking encashment of the certificate was not their rightful holder.

As noted earlier, the intimation of the loss of the certificates had been received at Bijpur sub post office on 19.12.1990. The said sub post office therefore, should immediately have issued circular to all the post offices informing them about the loss of the original Kisan Vikas Patras by the complainant. Had that been done, no post office would have encashed the certificates after 19.12.1990. There was time lag of about two years between the date on which the sub post office Bijpur was informed of the loss of the certificates and the date on which they were encashed by the other post office. The aforesid time period was more than enough to intimate the loss of the Kisan Vikas Patras to all the post offices, including the post office from where they were encashed. The petitioners were negligent in rendering services to the complainant by not intimating the loss of the original certificates to all the post offices.

During the course of arguments, I asked the learned counsel for the petitioner as to what steps to prevent encashment of the lost certificates they are taking in a case where duplicate certificates are issued by them under Rule 10 of the Kisan Vikas Patras Rules 1988. The learned counsel submitted that they are issuing circulars to all the post offices, informing them about the loss of the original certificates and issuance of the duplicate certificates. I see no reason why the same course of action could not have been adopted on the complainant, informing the sub post office at Bijpur about loss of his original Kisan Vikas Patras.

For the reasons stated herein above, I find no merit in the revision and the same is accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.