Senior Superintendent of Post Offices vs ANUKIRITI LEASING AND EXPORTS PVT. LTD.

HEARD learned Counsel Ms. Deepali Puri, Advocate for the appellant and perused the impugned order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) in Complaint Case No. 222 of 2002 decided on 12.3.2003.

THE respondent/complainant firm M/s. Anukiriti Leasing and Exports Pvt. Ltd. purchased National Saving Certificates (for short hereinafter referred to as the NSCs from the Post Office, Sector 17, Chandigarh. THE Post Office issued 35 Certificates each of the value of Rs. 10,000/- with date of issue as 29.6.1995. THEse NSCs matured on 29.6.2001 and the matured value payable was Rs. 7,05,250/-. When the respondent/complainant approached the Post Office for getting the matured value of the NSCs, the same was not made at that time and the matter was kept pending for about 5 months and thereafter only the face value of NSCs amounting to Rs. 3,50,000/- was paid on the ground that 35 NSCs aforesaid had wrongly been issued against rules which came into effect from 1.4.1995 in respect of NSCs (8th Issue). Under the aforesaid rules, the investment w.e.f. 1.4.1995 in NSCs could be made by individuals and trusts only. Condition No. 63(2) dealt with the procedure for regularization of irregular issue of NSCs. It is, however, not disputed that the Post Office after issuing NSCs with date of issue as 29.6.1995 did not detect the irregular issue of NSCs and did not take steps as provided by Condition No. 63(2), (3) and (4) which have been extracted in the impugned order and which required that the holder should be apprised of the alternative of encashment of irregularly issued NSCs with face value of the certificates at the same rate as admissible for the time being under the provisions of the Post Office Savings Account Rules, 1981. It also required the Post Master to issue the prescribed proforma.

Under Condition No. 62(2), the holder of the certificate could exercise option to accept appropriate SB rate of interest and in that case, it will be referred by the concerned PMG/DPS to the Department of Posts for obtaining approval of Department of Economic Affairs to such payment of interest and this reference was also to be made in a prescribed proforma.

CONDITION No. 63(3) provided that in case the holder of the certificate did not exercise option and did not accept appropriate S.B. rate then the Post Office wil refer the case to the Directorate through concerned PMG/DPS for decision if certificates issued irregularly may be discharged without interest as per rules or irregular issue regularized with approval of Department of Economic Affairs. This reference was also to be made in a proforma. Since the Post Office did not follow the procedure laid down in Condition No. 63(2) and no communication was made in this regard and since the payment of only face value of NSCs was made to the respondent/complainant, he filed the complaint seeking payment of the balance amount of Rs. 3,55,250/- with interest. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the appellants/O.Ps. to pay the balance amount of Rs. 3,55,250/- from 30.6.2001 till its payment and further interest on Rs. 3,50,000/- from 30.6.2001 to 23.1.2003 (when the amount was actually paid) within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

MS. Deepali Puri, Advocate appearing for the appellant raised the sole contention that the respondent/complainant could not invest money as a Company or a firm in view of revised rules framed regarding the NSCs (8th Issue) which came into force w.e.f. 4.1995. However, it is relevant to note that Condition No. 63 appended to the revised rules provided for the regularization of irregular issue of NSCs after its detection. We have already mentioned above that the appellants in the instant case did not follow the procedure as laid down in Condition No. 63(2) inasmuch as the appellants did not detect the issuance of irregular issue of NSCs and the Post Office did not apprise the holder of the NSCs i.e. the respondent/complainant and did not communicate to him about his options as contained in Condition Nos. 63(3) and 63(4). It was only that after the date of maturity and on the presentation of the NSCs for payment of matured value, the appellants refused to grant the benefit accruing to the respondent/complainant in respect of the aforesaid NSCs and its maturity value was not paid. As a matter of fact, the matter was delayed even regarding the payment of the face value of NSCs i.e. Rs. 3,50,000/- which was eventually paid on 23.1.2002 though the date when NSCs matured was 30.6.2001. The maturity value was not paid to the complainant and for no fault of the respondent/complainant, there was thus deficiency in service on the part of the appellants/O.Ps. The District Forum has taken into consideration these aspects and has relied on the decision of the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the case of The C II (2001) CPJ 373. In the case before the U.P. State Consumer Commission i.e. in the case of The Superintendent of Post Office & Anr. (supra), NSCs had been issued by the Department and the Government ordered that NSCs shall not be issued in the name of the firm but it shall be issued in the name of individuals and the trust. The District Forum had found it to be a case of deficiency in service. The U.P. State Consumer Commission upheld the order of the District Forum and it was held that the Department was guilty and deficient in rendering service by issuing NSCs in violation of the instructions and was liable to pay the maturity value of the NSCs with interest. We find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal lacks merit and is dismissed in limine.

COPIES of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. Appeal dismissed.