Superintendent Of Post Offices vs Jambu Kumar Jain

C.Viswanath, J

The present Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Order dated 13.04.2018 and 30.12.2016 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Odisha, Cuttack (hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission") in Appeal No. FA/356/2016.

Brief facts of the Case are as follows:-

The Respondent states that his father Late Rama Chandra Jain of Tusura purchased 692 Indira Vikas Patras(IVP) in the name of his sons, daughters etc. at Head Post Office, Bolangir. He lost all the 692 IVPs and reported the same to Tusura Police Station on 25.06.2001. The OIC Tusura Police Station further intimated the fact to Superintendent of Post Office, Bolangir on 14.07.2001 requesting the Petitioner to stay payment of maturity values of the lost IVPs without proper verification of IVPs of the IVP holder.

The deceased father of the Respondent had purchased in his favour 88 IVPs. The Respondent had raised a demand of Rs. 8,80,000/- towards maturity value of 88 IVPs and the Petitioner rejected his claim, vide letter dated 11.04.2002, on the ground of IVP Rule 7(2) 1986 and IVP Rule 10 of 1986.

There upon the Respondent filed a complaint in the District Forum. The District Forum, vide order dated 30.03.2016, allowed the complaint by taking reliance of the case Ram Nath Mathuria Vs. Union of India in R.P. No. 1725/2001 decided by the National Commission on 07.03.2002, in which it was held that "in the absence of any other claim on the basis of the original IVPs, maturity value should be released in favour of the claimants after taking an indemnity bond to secure interest of the department". District Forum directed the Petitioner to release payment of the maturity value of 88 IVPs amounting to Rs. 8,80,000/- to the Respondent, after furnishing an indemnity bond within 35 days of the Order. Non-compliance of the said order would lead to a penalty of Rs. 20/- per day till realization.

Against the above Order, the Petitioner filed an Appeal before the State Commission. State Commission, vide order dated 30.12.2016, dismissed the appeal of the Petitioner for non-prosecution as on previous two occasions also none appeared on behalf of the Petitioner.

Thereafter, the Petitioner preferred Writ Petition (C) No. 2347 of 2017 before High Court of Odisha, Cuttack against the order dated 30.12.2016 passed by the State Commission. High Court, vide order dated 12.07.2017, dismissed the Writ Petition as withdrawn with liberty to file a proper application to recall the order dated 30.12.2016. In view of the above, Petitioner preferred a Miscellaneous case before the State Commission. State Commission vide order dated 13.04.2018, again dismissed the Miscellaneous Case No. 113 of 2018 in F.A. No. 356 of 2016 as not pressed.

Being aggrieved by the orders passed by the State Commission, Petitioner has preferred the present Revision Petition.

Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and carefully perused the record. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that since inception the Respondent is not a Consumer and no deficiency in service has been committed on the part of the Petitioner and the Complaint of the Respondent is not maintainable. As per Rule 7 (2) and 10 of the IVP Rules 1986, the Respondent is not entitled to any claim and hence his claim has been rejected by the Department. Rule 7 and 10 of IVP Rules are as below:-

Rule 7- Replacement of certificate:- (1) If a certificate is mutilated or defaced, the bearer is entitled for replacement from the Post Office of issue on payment of fee of rupee one.

(2) A certificate lost, stolen, mutilated, defaced or destroyed beyond recognition will not be replaced by any Post Office.

Rule 10 - Responsibility of the Post Office:- the Post Office shall not be responsible for any loss caused to a holder by any person obtaining possession of a certificate and fraudulently encashing it.

The District Forum without evidence has passed orders directing the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 8.8 lakhs within 35 days, along with penalty to the Respondent in case of default. Being aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, Petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission. Due to the personal difficulty of the Counsel of the Petitioner, F.A. No. 356/2016 was dismissed for non-prosecution.

In furtherance of the orders of the Hon'ble High Court, the Petitioner moved Miscellaneous Case before the State Commission for recalling the impugned order dated 30.12.2016. However, again for the reason of non-appearance on that particular day, the State Commission dismissed the Miscellaneous Application No. 113/2018.

The State Commission passed the impugned order without applying judicious mind and going into the merits of the application. The main prayer of the Petitioner is to allow the present revision petition and set aside order dated 13.04.2018, thereby allowing Miscellaneous Application No. 113/2018 for restoration in F.A. No. 356/2016, setting aside the impugned order dated 30.12.2016 passed by the State Commission, Odisha.

There is a delay of 5 days in filing the Revision Petition. No delay application, however, has been filed by the Petitioner, along with the said Revision Petition.

Vide Order dated 30.12.2016, FA No. 356/2016 was dismissed for non-prosecution by the State Commission as none was appearing on behalf of the Petitioner on call. On previous two occasions also, none appeared on behalf of the Petitioner. The State Commission has been fair, reasonable and just to give several chances and on every occasion, the Petitioner was not represented. As far as Miscellaneous Case is concerned, the Petitioner chose not to press the same and hence the memo was allowed and Miscellaneous Case was dismissed as not pressed.

The District Forum Bolangir, heard the Learned Counsels for the parties at length and passed a reasoned Judgement . Consequent to the loss of the IVPs, the Police was duly informed and the matter was also intimated to the Superintendent Post Office, Bolangir. The claim of the Respondent was rejected, though, his brother has been awarded Rs. 3,25,000/- against lost IVPs and paid in 2014, against an undertaking of indemnity bond.

The contention of the Petitioners that the Respondent is not a consumer within the meaning of section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 has been elaborately rebutted by the District Forum and the present case "passed every ingredient of maintainability thus fit to adjudicate". Further, a reliance has been placed in the case Ram Nath Mathuria Vs. Union of India & Ors. in R.P. No. 1725/2001 decided on 07.03.2002, in which this Commission held as under:-

What we are unable to agree is a "blanket wall" approach. In a sovereign democratic and transparent society, it cannot be the case of the respondent that the Investor in IVP forfeit the right to get the money back just because he loses the receipt or is stolen away from him. It could not have been the case of the respondent that the money now vests with them. It is not their case either, otherwise why would they keep the IVPs in safe custody. In our opinion a more pragmatic and dynamic view is required to be taken in such cases. Deficiency in services is perceived from the date in December, 1986 when the complainant reported loss of the receipt of IVPs. He should have been advised by the authorities as to what to do. To tell him "nothing can be done" is rendering no service by a public body, in this case the Government itself. On maturity, money is not given, instead IVPs are kept in safe custody. For how long ? There are no instructions. This itself is a deficiency. ..........

In the instant case, these IVPs are still lying unclaimed in safe custody of the respondents, these have not been claimed even after 11 years of maturity, the State could well afford to release the money with all the accompanying benefits after taking an indemnity bond to secure their own interest."

It is observed by the District Forum, that Petitioner's rejection of the claim proves a fresh cause of action. The same point raised by the Petitioner in the Revision Petition also holds no relevance.

The Respondent's Father had purchased 88 IVPs for a total amount of Rs. 8.8 lakhs. The same were lost and a Police Complaint was filed. The claim of the Respondent on maturity was rejected. Several years have elapsed and the amount deposited still lies with the Postal Department. So far there appears no other claimant for the amount. It certainly cannot be the case of the Petitioner to appropriate the entire amount forever, since the lost documents has not been submitted to them. It is but fair and reasonable that after proper verification and taking due precautions like indemnity bond etc., the Department after securing its interests, should atleast pay the maturity value to the Respondent, after having not succeeded in the several rounds of litigation. This Commission way back in the year 2002, in a matter of similar nature has elaborately discussed the issues and directed the department to release the money, as sufficient time had elapsed since the date of maturity. Therefore, it clearly appears that there is no error in the order passed by the District Forum.

Application for stay i.e. I.A. No. 14129/2018 and application for exemption from filing certified copies i.e. I.A. No. 14130/2018 filed by the Petitioner in the present Revision Petition are disposed accordingly with the said petition.

In view of the above, the present Revision Petition stands dismissed and order passed by the District Forum in the Complaint Case is confirmed.