RESERVED

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P., Lucknow.

Appeal No. 185 of 2010

1- Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,

    Faizabad Division, Faizabad.

2- Senior Post Master, Head Post Office,  

    Faizabad.                                                    ..Appellants.

Versus

Seth Dwarika Das Memorial High School,

Moti  Nagar, Faizabad through Manager

Sri Roshan Lal Gupta.                                 ...Respondent.

Present:-                                                   

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

2- Hon’ble Sri Mahesh Chand, Member.

Shi S.P. Singh for the appellant.

None for the respondent.

Date   11.5.2017

JUDGMENT

(Delivered by Sri Vijai Varma,  Member)

Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 6.10.2009, passed by the Ld. DCDRF, Faizabad in complaint case No.216 of 1998, the appellant Senior Superintendent of Post Offices and another have preferred the instant appeal. 

The facts leading to this appeal, in short, are that the respondent/complainant had taken  three 7 years NSC of Rs.1,000.00 each on 14.10.1980 from the appellant/OP. The Maturity date of the NSC was 14.10.1987. Subsequently, as the NSCs were lost in the year 1985 hence, they got the duplicate of the same from the appellant. After the maturity of the aforesaid NSCs the respondent/complainant produced the NSCs before the

(2)

appellant/OP no.1 but they did not agree to make payment of the maturity amount and only agreed to make payment of the deposited amount, as according to them the NSCs could not be issued in the name of the institutions. Since the complainant was not paid the maturity amount despite issuance of the NSCs hence, the complainant filed a complaint case before the District Forum, Faizabad where the OPs filed their WS mentioning therein that 7 years NSC could not be issued to an institution hence, no amount of interest was payable, therefore, the maturity amount could not be paid. The complainant was made aware that only deposited amount could be paid to them. It was also submitted that the complaint was not maintainable. After hearing the counsel for the parties, the Forum below passed the impugned order on 6.10.2009 which is as under:-

"परिवादी का परिवाद स्‍वीकार किया जाताहै। विपक्षी को आदेश दिया जाता है कि निर्णय पारित करने के एक माह के अन्‍दर राष्‍ट्रीय बचत पत्र की परिपक्‍वता की तिथि तक उस पर देय ब्‍याज दर के अनुसार उसका भुगतान करे और परिपक्‍वता के तिथि के उपरांत बचत पत्र की राशि की अदायगी की तिथि तक 06 प्रतिशत की दरसे साधारण ब्‍याज भी परिवादी को अदा करे तथा प्रतिकर के मद रू0 1500/- और परिवाद ब्‍यय के मद में भी रू0 1000/- अदा करे।"

Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order, this appeal has been preferred by the appellants.

The main grounds of the appeal are that the ld. Forum, Faizabad had exceeded jurisdiction in passing the impugned order. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the appellants, as they were not in a position to

(3)

make payment beyond rules. The Forum below has passed arbitrary order. The appellants are ready to make payment as admissible under rules, therefore, the order passed by the ld. Forum is liable to be set aside.

          Heard the ld. counsel for the appellant and perused the entire records. None appeared for the respondent/ complainant.  

Now it is to be seen as to whether the appellant had committed deficiency in service in not making payment of the maturity amount of the NSCs. If so, its consequences ?

In this case, it is not disputed that the respondent/ complainant had been issued three NSCs of Rs.1,000.00 each on 14.10.1980 by the Up Dakpal, HSG-II, Moti Nagar, Faizabad. It is also not disputed that the NSCs were to mature on 14.10.1987. The disputed point according to the appellant is that the complainant was an Institution and no NSC could be issued in the name of any Institution and therefore, the NSC could not have been issued by the appellant and hence, on maturity they could not pay any interest but on the deposited amount could be paid.

Ld. Counsel for the appellant has argued that the NSCs could not have been issued to an institution and since the complainant was an institution hence, the NSC could not be issued to them and therefore, only the deposited amount could be paid to the complainant. The ld. counsel in this regard has filed photocopy of the procedure for 6 years NSC VIII Issue wherein it is mentioned that the certificates are to be issued to the individuals and trusts only and on the basis of these, it is

(4)

argued that the certificates could not be issued and hence, the maturity amount could also not be paid. First of all the procedure, copy of which has been filed is with regard to six years NSC VIII Issue and not Seven Years VII Issue. Besides, it is not disputed by the appellant that the certificates were not issued by them. It is also clear from the averments made and the documents filed that the amount of Rs.3,000.00 (Rupees three thousands only) remained with the appellants and that they had issued certificates and therefore, they were bound by the condition of the certificate. If the appellants were not authorized to issue the certificates to an institution then they should not have issued the certificate but the fact is that the certificates were issued. Therefore, the appellant can not run away from their responsibility of fulfilling the promises made. The appellant themselves are to be blamed for the negligence in issuance of certificate because they could not fulfil the promises made. Had the fact been known to the respondent/complainant that they would not  get any interest on the amount deposited they would not have purchased the certificates. So for the fault on the part of its employee who issued the certificates, the appellant is responsible, the respondent/complainant could not be penalized. In case the appellants were not entitled to issue certificates then the appellants had to penalize their officials for issuing such certificates but not the complainant. Therefore, the appellants were squarely responsible for the deficiency in service in not making the payment of matured amount to the complainants.

(5)

Therefore, there does not appear to be any justification to interfere in the rationally concluded judgment of the Forum below. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.   

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed.

Parties shall bear their own costs.

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

                 (Vijai Varma)                    (Mahesh Chand)

               Presiding Member                     Member

Jafri PA II

Court No.4