SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, P And T DEPARTMENT vs INDER SINGH

THIS is an appeal by the Government of India against the judgment of the District Forum dated 13.1.2006. The relevant facts are that the complainant Inder Singh had purchased 12 Indra Vikas Patras (IVPs) for a sum of Rs. 2,500 each (total Rs. 30,000) bearing Registration No. 72 and distinctive No. SC-6 to 620839 to 62850. These were issued on 27.5.1987 which were to mature on 27.5.1992 for a maturity value of Rs. 60,000. The complainant alleged that he had lost Indra Vikas Patras in floods though he had distinctive numbers of the same. The Post Office from where the Indra Vikas Patras had been purchased refused to give any amount or issue duplicate I.V.Ps. THIS led the complainant to file a complaint before the District Forum which was allowed vide order dated 13.1.2006. The operative portion of the judgement of the District Forum reads as under : "In view of our above discussion, this complaint is accepted and the opposite parties are directed to verify if these I.V.Ps. have been got encashed and thereafter they should pay the amount of the Indira Vikas Patras to the complainant on furnishing the Indemnity Bond to the extent of Rs.60,000. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Compliance of the order be made within one month of the receipt of copy of this order. Copy of the order be sent to the parties. File be completed and consigned to record."

FOR coming to the conclusion District FORum relied upon the judgment of the Kerala State Consumer Commission reported as I (2004) CPJ 165=2004 (1) CPC 238, titled as Sub-Post Master v. E.G. Sulochana. Hence the present appeal by the Govt. of India.

Learned Counsel for the respondent cited a judgment of the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Commission reported as Head Post Office, Solan & Another v. Partap Singh, I (2004) CPJ 587=2004 (1) CPC 489, to contend that in case of loss of the I.V.Ps. then after maturity the validity value can be given on furnishing some surety or Indemnity Bond. The Post Office can verify that the particular numbers have not so far been encashed. This latter judgment need not detain us any more because of the judgment of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 4819 of 2000, decided on April 5, 2006 with C.A. No. 1934 of 2006 (Arising out of SLP ( C) No. 11387 of 2003), titled Central Government of India & Ors. v. Krishnaji Parvetesh Kulkarni, III (2006) SLT 352, which has been rendered very recently. It was observed in the judgment by the Apex Court that "An Indra Vikas Patra (IVP) is akin to an ordinary currency note. It bears no name of the holder. Just as a lost currency note cannot be replaced, similarly the question of replacing IVP does not arise". The Supreme Court further observed that Rule 7(2) of 1986 Rules framed under the Govt. Saving Certificate Rules for issuing of the I.V.Ps. makes it clear that a certificate lost, stolen, mutiliated, defaced or destroyed beyond recognition will not be replaced by the Post Office. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court the judgment cited by learned Counsel for the respondent cannot be of any help in the case.

BEFORE we part with this judgement we may also observe that this State Commission in judgment reported as Sub-Post Master, Boha v. Makhan Lal, II (2000) CPJ 91=2000 (1) CPC 475, held that where the Indra Vikas Patra was allegedly lost during heavy rain and the complainant in that case had applied for duplicate I.V.Ps. but the Department refused to issue the duplicate I.V.Ps., the complainant was held not to be a consumer. As per the Department Rules referred, to which reference has been made above, no duplicate I.V.Ps. can be issued in case of lost ones. For the foregoing reasons, we accept this appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum and dismiss the complaint. In the facts and circumstances of this case we make no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.