Respondent purchased Kisan Vikas Patra (KVPS) for Rs. 2,00,000/- on 04.01.2001 with maturity value of Rs. 4,00,000/- on 05.07.2007.   Again on 05.01.2001, he purchased KVPs in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- having maturity value of Rs. 4,00,000/- on 06.07.2007 jointly with wife Surjit Kaur.   His wife died on 03.03.2003 and the said KVPs were transferred in his name.  On 16.12.2003, all the KVPs purchased on 04.01.2001 and 05.01.2001 were transferred to the petitioner’s Sub-Post Office.  On maturity the amount was not paid.  Being aggrieved, respondent filed the complaint before the District Forum. 

During the pendency of the complaint, a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- plus interest of Rs. 13,265/- was paid to the respondent on 08.08.2008.  District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay the balance of Rs. 4,50,000/- to the respondent towards the remaining maturity value along with interest @ 8% from the last date of maturity i.e. 06.07.2007 till the date of payment together with costs of Rs. 5,000/-.

 Petitioner not satisfied with the order passed by the District Forum filed the appeal before the State Commission, which has been dismissed by the impugned order.  The State Commission in its order has observed as under:

          “The purchasing of KVPs in the name of the respondent and his wife and later on after the death of his wife Surjit Kaur, transfer of KVPs in the name of the respondent, are admitted facts.  The argument of the counsel  for the appellant that the original KVPs amounting to Rs. 2.25 lacs are with the appellant and the same were untraced and signed by the respondent, which proved that the total  value of these KVPs was paid to the respondent, is not tenablein view of the statement of Sh. Resham Lal, Sub Postmaster recorded by the District Forum on 11.06.2009.  Shri Resham Lal, Sub Postmaster stated that he has brought the original record pertaining to KVPs of Amar Singh and Surjit Kaur.  Total KVPs of the face value of Rs. 4.00 lacs were issued to Amar Singh from Post Office, Daroli Kalan.   The total amount of Rs. 3,63,265/- of KVPs of the face value of Rs. 1.75 lacs was paid to Amar Singh.  Ex-C-G is the correct copy of the audit which pertains to KVPs of Rs. 2.25 lacs and the report pertains to the amount of Rs. 2.00 lacs and the face value of the amount of KVPs of Rs. 2.25 lacs was not traced out, as per the audit report.

          The above statement of Sh. Resham Lal, Sub Postmaster clearly proves that there was some fraud as admitted by the appellant and Ops and the audit was conducted and after the receipt of audit report, it came to the notice of the appellant and Ops that the KVPs of the face value of Rs. 2.25 lacs were not traced out.  The plea of the appellant that the maturity amount of these KVPs of the face value of Rs. 2.25 lacs was paid to the respondent is also not supported by any documentary evidence, nor any cheque was issued for this amount, whereas the cheque on 08.08.2008 was issued for a sum of Rs. 3,63,265/- for KVPs heaving face value of Rs. 1.75 lacs.  For the negligence on the part of the officials of the appellant and Ops and for the fraud within their own premises, the respondent cannot be punished.  The District Forum has discussed in detail the entire evidence and as discussed above, it is the admitted case of the appellant and Ops that the KVPs of Rs. 2.25 lacs pertaining to the respondent were missing and the face value of the same was Rs. 4.50 lacs and the District Forum has rightly passed the order which is based on the evidence and there is no ground to interfere with the same.”

          We agree with the view taken by the State Commission.  If there is fraud committed then the purchaser of the KVPs cannot be penalized.  We do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission.

Dismissed.