RESERVED

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P., Lucknow.

Appeal No. 2578 of 2007

1- Union of India through the Secretary (Department

    of Post), New Delhi.

2- Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,

    Bareilly Division, Bareilly.

3- Post Master, Katra Bazaar, Tehsil, Bisalpur,

    Distt. Pilibhit.                                               ..Appellants.

Versus

1- Mukesh Kumar Gupta] Both the sons of late

2- Manoj Kumar Gupta   ] Jagdish Chand Gupta.

3- Smt. Kamlesh Gupta w/o Late Jagdish Chand Gupta,

   All three are the partners of M/s Chheda Lal Sita Ram,

   Katra Bazaar, Tehsil Bisalpur, Distt. Pilibhit.

                                                                     ...Respondents.

Present:-                                                   

1- Hon’ble Sri Vijai Varma, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Sri Govardhan Yadav, Member.

Shri K.K. Pathak for the appellants.

Shri Alok Ranjan for the respondents.

Date  5.9.2018

JUDGMENT

(Delivered by Sri Vijai Varma,  Member)

This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 11.7.2007, passed by the Ld. DCDRF, Pilibhit in complaint case No.13 of 2005. 

The facts leading to this appeal, in short, are that the respondents/complainants were partners in the firm M/s Chheda Lal Sita Ram and for the purpose of procuring license of the firm the complainants’ father Shri Jagdish Chand Gupta had taken 3 NSCs on 7.6.1996 for a total sum of Rs.7,000.00 from the appellants/OPs and they were kept with Upsambhagiya Vipran Achikar, Pilibhit. The

(2)

NSCs were got released on 24.9.2002. The complainants thereafter, fulfilled all the formalities demanded by the appellants/OPs to make payment of the NSCs but despite contacting the OPs many a times the payment of the NSCs was not made and a letter was received by the complainants on 29.4.2004 that  Since 1.4.1995 directions have been issued for not issuing the NSCs in the name of firm/institution hence, no interest was payable on the aforesaid NSCs. The complainants asked for payment of the amount with interest but nothing was done, therefore, a complaint was filed before the Forum below wherein the OPs submitted their WS mentioning therein that no interest was payable on the NSCs and it was informed to the complainants that the payment may be obtained without interest from the Post Office concerned as per letter dated 23.4.2006, as no interest was payable on NSCs issued  in the name of firm/institution but the complainants did not opt for such payment and therefore, the appellants/OPs did not commit any deficiency in service. Thereafter, the Forum below passed the impugned order on 11.7.2007, as under:-

"परिवादीगण का यह परिवाद विरूद्व विपक्षीगण 1 ता 3 के यथा निवेदित स्‍वीकार किया जाता है। तद्ननुसार विपक्षीगण को एतद् द्वारा यह निर्देश  दिया जाता है कि वे इस निर्णय की दिनांक से 30 दिन के अन्‍दर परिवादीगण को तीनों कथित राष्‍ट्रीय बचतपत्रों में जमा धराशि अंकन रू07000/- को संविदे के अनुसार मय देय ब्‍याज के वापिस करे दें। विपक्षीगण परिवादीगण को क्षतिपूर्ति के रूप में अलग से रू03000/- की धनराशि अदा करेंगे तथा परिवाद के व्‍यय के रूप में भी परिवादीगण को मुबलिग 2000/- रूपया की धनराशि नियत की दिनांक के अन्‍दर अदा करेंगे। ऐसा न करने पर परिवादीगण को यह अधिकार होगा कि वे फोरम के समक्ष इजराय का प्रार्थनापत्र देकर विपक्षीगण के व्‍यय पर उक्‍त समस्‍त धनराशि की वसूली करा  लें।"

(3)

Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order that the appellants have filed this appeal mainly on the grounds that the complainants were not entitled for any interest on the NSCs purchased for a firm as per rules but the ld. Forum has passed the order against the rules and therefore, it is liable to be set aside and the appeal allowed.

 Heard counsel for the parties and perused the entire records.

In this case, it is not disputed that the father of the  complainants had purchased the NSCs for a total sum of  Rs.7,000.00. It is also not disputed that the payment of the NSC with interest was not made to the complainants.  The disputed point according to the appellants/OPs is that as per the rules no NSC was to be issued since 1.4.2005 in the name of the firm and therefore, even if the NSCs were issued then too the appellants were not liable to make payment of the amount with interest to the respondents/ complainants.

 So, now it is to be seen as to whether the appellants/ OPs committed deficiency in service in repudiating the claim of the complainants for payment of the amount as per records made in the NSCs or not. If so, its consequence.

In this regard, it is argued by the ld. Counsel for the appellants that there was a government order that since 1.4.1995 no interest was payable on the NSCs issued in the name of the firm/institution and hence, no interest was payable on the NSCs to the complainants. There is no dispute that the NSCs were issued in the name of the firm

(4)

and since the government order was effective from 1.4.2005 and the NSCs were issued in the year 1996 therefore, no interest was payable on the amount deposited under the NSCs in the name of the firm. On the contrary, it is argued by the ld. Counsel for the respondents/ complainants that it was the appellants/OPs who issued the NSCs and if at all no interest was payable on the NSCs then the appellants/OPs should not have issued the NSCs wherein the interest was also payable and therefore, it was the fault of the appellants/Ops for which the respondents/ complainants cannot be faulted with but in this regard the ld. counsel for the appellants has cited the ruling Superintendent of Post Offices & Ors. vs. Halpline Grahak Manda & Anr., 2010(3) CPC 26 (NC), wherein it was held that as per rules the NSC could not be purchased by HUF therefore, order passed by the State Commission for allowing the complaint with regard to payment of the NSCs was set aside. In this ruling the case law of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Postmaster, Dargamitta HPO, Nellore s. Raja Prameeelamma (MS) (1998)9 SCC 706, wherein it was held that inadvertent omission on the part of clerical staff of Post Office to correct the old rate of interest an maturity value on the NSCs which were sold after the issuance of said notification, held did not amount to deficiency in service.

As regards the contract, no doubt the sale of National Savings Certificates with the terms and conditions embodied thereon constitutes a contract between the Government of India as seller and the holders of the

(5)

National Savings Certificates. But as this contract was contrary to the terms notified by the Government of India and, this was due to inadvertence of the staff. In my opinion, it does not become a contract binding the Government of India being unlawful and void. As such this is not a case of deficiency in service either in terms of the law or in terms of the contract as defined in Section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.”

So on the basis of this ruling, it is clear that if the NSCs were issued by the officials of the appellants/OPs inadvertently then too the contract cannot take effect as it was against the notified terms of the Government of India. Obviously, the officials could not have issued the NSCs as per notification of the Government of India for issuing NSCs in the name of the firm. Therefore, as per the aforesaid ruling the appellants/OPs were not liable for deficiency in service in not making payment of the interest as per NSCs issued as they were issued in the name of the firm in violation of rule 4 of the NSC. So the appellants/OPs did not commit any deficiency in service in not making payment as per the amount indicated in the NSCs but certainly they should have paid interest of 6% as was the order passed by the Hon‘ble National Commission in the aforesaid case but as the appellants/OPs did not make payment of 6% interest as should have been done by them hence, they committed deficiency in service in that respect, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be amended to that extent and the appeal deserves to be partly allowed.   

(6)

ORDER

The appeal is partly allowed. The impugned  judgment dated 11.7.2007 is amended to the extent that appellant shall make payment of the amount of NSCs i.e. Rs.7,000.00 with 6% interest. The rest of the order shall  remain as it is.

Parties shall bear their own costs.

Certified copy of the judgment be provided to the parties in accordance with rules.

                 (Vijai Varma)                 (Govardhan Yadav)

               Presiding Member                     Member

Jafri PA II

Court No.3