Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 386 (CHH)

BHILAI MAHILA SAMAJ v. SUB-POST MASTER

2006-08-02

R.S.AWASTHI, V.K.AGARWAL, VEENA MISRA

body2006
ORDER As per Hon'ble Justice Shri V.K. Agarwal President :- 1. Since both these appeals under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 arise from the same order dated 17.05.2006 in complaint NO.35/06 by the District Consumer Dispute's Redressal forum Durg (hereinafter 'called 'District Forum' for short) directing the Post Office (Respondent in Appeal NO.280/06 and Appellant in Appeal No.284/06) to pay to the complainant (Appellant in Appeal No.280/06 and Respondent in Appeal No.284/06) a sum of Rs,4,74;000/- with interest @ 3.5%p.a. thereo'n payable from 1/2/04 besides cost ofRs.500/-; they are being disposed off by this common order. 2. The relevant facts stated briefly are that the complainant, Bhilai Mahila Samaj, Bhillai Nagar Durg is a registered society arid had purchased from Post Office, Kisan Vikas Patm (KVP for short) of the denomination of Rs.2,37,000/- on 1/08/98. The maturity value of the said KVPs admittedly was Rs.4,74,000/-_ The said amount was thus payable by the Post Office to the complainant on the date of maturity on 1/02/04. It is also not in dispute now that when the complainant submitted the above KVPs to the Post Office on maturity on 1/02/04, the Post Office only proposed to return the invested value of the said KVPs; on the ground that the KVPs were mistakenly issued to the complainant as the complainant being a society, was not entitled to obtain and hold the said KVPs. As the above amount was not acceptable to the complainant, he approached the District Forum. 3. The District Forum in the impugned order held that the complainant was entitled to get back the maturity amount ofRs.4,74,000/_ with respect to the said KVPs and accordingly directed that the said amount with interest@ 3.5% p.a. from the date of maturity i.e. 1/2/04 be refunded to the complainant. and also directed that cost, of Rs.500/- shall also be payable to the complainant. 4. The complainant in Appeal NO.280/06 challenged the award in regard to grant of interest @ 3.5% from date of maturity i.e. 1/02/04 and termed, it as most inadequate. It was submitted that interest@ 10% per annum from the date of maturity of KVPs ought to have been awarded, as had been prayed in the complaint. 5. In Appeal No.284/06, the post office has challenged the award. It was submitted that interest@ 10% per annum from the date of maturity of KVPs ought to have been awarded, as had been prayed in the complaint. 5. In Appeal No.284/06, the post office has challenged the award. It has been urged therein that the complainant was not entitled to maturity value, but was only entitled to the invested sum of Rs.2,37,000/_. 6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record and the impugned order. 7. The main dispute between the parties is as to whether the complainant was entitled to purchase and hold KVPs? In the above context, learned counsel for the Postal Department submitted that by notification dated 8/03/95, KVP Rules 1988 has been amended and rule 6(2) has been substituted by a new rule, by way of amendment. 8. It may be noticed that prior to 1/04/95, as per rule 6(2) of the KVP Rules 1988, the certificates could be issued to :_ (i) a banking company; (ii) a company; (iii) a Corporation; (iv) an association, institution or body registered as a society under any law for the time being in force (v) a firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (9 of 1932); (vi) a local authority. (vii) A Cooperative society /bank/institution registered as such under any law for the being in force. However, by notification dated 8/3/95, the said rule of 1988 has been amended as below: In rule 6, under the heading "Types of certificates and issue thereof, for clause (a) of sub rule (2), the following shall be substituted, namely:- "(a) A single Holder Type Certificate may be issued to :-(i) an adult for himself or on behalf of a minor or to a minor. (ii) a trust." 9. It would therefore appear from the above that prior to 1/04/95, inter alia a cooperative society or institution registered as such, or institution or body registered as society under any law for the time being in force etc., was entitled to purchase and hold the certificates. Subsequently, by notification dt.8.3.95 the individuals or trust only were declared to be eligible holders of the KVPs. 10. However, there appears to be nothing on record to show that the complainant was made aware of the aforesaid amendment. He was not told that it was not entitled to purchase or hold the certificates, when it purchased the KVPs. Subsequently, by notification dt.8.3.95 the individuals or trust only were declared to be eligible holders of the KVPs. 10. However, there appears to be nothing on record to show that the complainant was made aware of the aforesaid amendment. He was not told that it was not entitled to purchase or hold the certificates, when it purchased the KVPs. In case the complainant society was not entitled to purchase the KVPs,. the same should not have been sold to it. There also appears to be nothing to show that the complainant was aware of any rules or the amendment were ever brought to its notice to apprise him that it was ineligible to purchase the KVPs. The Post Office cannot be permitted to take advantage of its own omissions or wrong, In the circumstances, if the KVPs matured for payment, the interest component thereon which accrued during the period for which the postal department retained the amount invested by the complainant, could not be refused to be paid to the complainant. 11. Reference in the above context may be made to the decision of National Commission in Post Master & others Vs. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti. The said case was also a case of KVPs purchased by Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti. It was observed therein :- "If any wrong has been committed by the employee of the petitioner then it is for them to recover this amount by holding proper enquiry, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K. Gupta. The investor/consumer cannot be on the receiving end for any failure on the part of the petitioner. It is for them to put their house in order." The facts in the instant case are similar and there appears to be no justification for Post Office to refuse payment of Interest on the KVPs purchased by the complainant. Accordingly, the impugned order directing payment thereof by the Post Office to the complainant is fully justified and calls for no interference. Consequently, Appeal no.284/06 by the postal department cannot be allowed. 12. So far as Appeal no.280/06 is concerned, in which enhanced interest from the date of maturity i.e. from 1/02/04 is sought, we find that interest @ 3.5% is inadequate and deserves to be enhanced. Consequently, Appeal no.284/06 by the postal department cannot be allowed. 12. So far as Appeal no.280/06 is concerned, in which enhanced interest from the date of maturity i.e. from 1/02/04 is sought, we find that interest @ 3.5% is inadequate and deserves to be enhanced. The complainant society could not avail of the amount payable to it on maturity of KVPs and was deprived of its use from the date of maturity. In view of the normal interest payable on the KVPs, we consider it just and proper to award interest @ 8% p.a. and to enhance the interest to the above extent accordingly. 13. Accordingly, Appeal no.284/06 by Post Office/OP is dismissed. However, Appeal NO.280/06 by the complainant is partly allowed. It is directed that the complainant shall be entitled to recover from the OP/Post Office - respondent in Appeal No.280/06, a sum ofRsA,74,000/- with interest @ 8% p.a. payable from 1/02/04 till the date of payment. The cost, of litigation including that of the complaint as well this appeal, quantified at. Rs.2,000/- shall also be payable by the OP/postal department to the complainant. The impugned order, stands modified to the extent as above. One appeal rejected another partly allowed.