DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM. BOLANGIR.
…………………………………………….
Presents:-
1. Sri P.Samantara, President.
2. Sri G.K.Rath, Member.
Dated, Bolangir the 30th day of March 2016.
C.C.No.39 of 2015.
Chhagan Lal Jain,son of late Rama Chandra Jain, At/P.O/P.S-Tusura,Dist-Bolangir.
At Present residing at Basanti Colony, R/V, EM 123,Rourkela,
P.S.Uditnagar,Rourkela, Dist-Sundargarh.
.. .. Complainant.
-Versus-
The Superintendent of Post Office, Bolangir, At/P.O/P.S/Dist- Bolangir.
.. .. Opp.Party.
Adv.for the complainant- Sri B.S.Satpathy.
Adv.for the Opp.Party. – Sri S.K.Mishra, G.P.
Date of filing of the case- 18.05.2015
Date of order - 30.3.2016
JUDGMENT.
Sri P.Samantara, President.
In a nutshell, complainant’s father purchased 160nos of Indira vikash Patra (IVP) in various dates from head post office Bolangir and each IVP were of base denomination of Rs 5,000/- each and in maturity the amount will be doubled against the base denomination, in post five and half years from the date of purchase. Av erred the total maturity value will comes to Rs 16,00,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakh) only;-The date and serial number as follows:-
- Date Nos IVP bearing No. Amount.
- 23.02.1998 20,63C 112276 to 112295 Rs 1,00,000/-
And 2894 to l2913.
02.03.1998 140 nos 63C 112366 to 112505 Rs 7,00,000/-
Total- 160 nos Rs 8,00,000/-
2. The complainant stated all the purchased IVPs as aforementioned have been lost and not traced any more consequent to the loss one S.D.E.No.479/2001 has been reported at Tusura Police Station on dt.25.06.2001 and also the matter has been intimated to the Superintendent of Post offices, Bolangir on dt.14.07.2001 requesting to stay payment of the maturity value of lost IVPs without proper verification IVPs and its holder.
3, On dt.22.01.2001 the entire lost IVPs claim was raised before the O.P which has been rejected on the ground of Rule 7(2),1986 and IVP Rules 10 of 1986,intimating vide letter dt.11.04.2002 to the complainant.
4. The complainant also added, the entire purchased IVPs consists of l692 nos and his brother under C.C.No.106/2002,DCDRF,Bolangir has been awarded Rs 3,25,000/- against lost IVPs ,which has been paid in the year 2014,advised by Post Master General, Sambalpur vide R.O. file mark CPT/6/BGR- 11/2002 dt.26.10.2012 and 29.01.2013,under an undertaking of indemnity Bond from the investors of the lost IVPs. Further averred, the cause of action arise on dt.09.01.2015 as the O.P rejected the claim, vide his office letter No.L/Misc.-IVPPMTG/2014-15, so the action of the O.P is illegal, preposterous and lacks parity in standard in maintaining the official procedures. The O.P disregard the norms of equal justice although being ready with to render proper indemnify bond. Such discriminatory attitude is deficiency of service to the petitioner as a whole and be compensated with due relief and cost. Relied on photo copies of correspondence letters, C.D appeal decision- 603/2004, W.P.(C) No.1973 of 2006, legal heirs certificate, order dt.20.01.2003,Pleaders notice, Repudiation letter and affidavit.
5. In pursuant to notice, the O.P appeared and filed the version contending, the complainant is no more a consumer ,again to be a consumer within the meaning of section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act,1985,the onus lies on the complainant to prove that consideration was paid in hiring the service. No evidence purports on the complaint that consideration was paid in purchase of IVPs , so the complaint does not fall within the consumer dispute. As to the raising particular serial nos and value were purchased relating to specific person name and address is not retained at the post office as per the Indira Vikas Patra Rule 1986. It is a bearer instrument like currency note being transferable. So non suffice of documentary support same cannot be admitted one. Even the loss of IVPs were not reported to the Post Master, Head Post office, Bolangir and has not impleaded as a necessary party.
6. As regard to any settlement as urged has been ensured by the Orders of the Hon’ble forum and executive instruction vide RO file mark CPT/6/BGR-11/2002 dt.26.12.2002. Further it must be taken into note that cases have been filed in small amounts although the entire purchase amount relates to a disproportionate beyond this jurisdiction which postulates an ulterior motive underline the claim. This opposite party acted in accordance with statutory provisions of IVP Rules 1986 and under same statutory obligation has rejected the request to entertain the claim vide letter No.L/Misc/IVP PMT/2014-15 dated 09.01.2015, so there is no deficiency on the part of the Opposite party in rendering service. In view of the foregoing non-sustentative contentions, the complainant is not entitled to any relief as claimed and the case being devoid of merit liable to be dismissed. Made reliance on Indira Vikas Patra Rules, 1986 in photo copies.
7. Subsequent proceeding, Heard the learned counsels submission at length so also the arguments. Perused the documents on record.
8. On the first instance, we heard on the maintainability components. The contention raised by the O.P is elaborately rebutted. It is submitted Post office discharges statutory duties and vending of Indira Vikas Patra, against paid price to procure, is a consideration, further it is settled principles non payment of dues accumulated against a maturity amount in indemnification of a full matured value is also a recurring cause of action and it is also a principle, the opposite parties rejection in non entitlement to claim proves to fresh cause of action to ensue the potential right and in this case the letter of rejection on claim vide letter No. L/Misc- IVPPMTG/2014-15 dt.09.01.2015 implants a fresh cause of action against the liability that dues with the O.P. On the other hand, the O.P resides here and all part of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction, so the rebuttal as raised by the O.P not grounded the defence wall of limitation. So the case passed every ingredient of maintainability thus fit to adjudicate.
9. At about the purchase of IVPs in question from Sl No l63C 112276 to 112295 and 2894 to l2913 under base denomination of Rs 5,000/- each totaling 160nos is evidential that the awarded have been discharged in relevant consumer case appeals and lastly by the direction made by the Post Master General, Sambalpur, vide RO-File Mark CPT/6/BGR-11/2002 dt.26.10.2012 amounting to Rs 3,25,000/- which incorporates part of entire purchased Nos of IVP of l692 nos, being admitted and partly hitherto not paid rather rejected due to statutory compulsion ground of Rule 7(2) 1986 and IVP Rules 10 of 1986. So the petitioner has lost the right to claim and money is liable to be gone forfeited. On the such premise, we can say the order passed in appeal No.603/2003 and in which it has taken reliance of the case-Ram Nath Mathuria Vs Union of India in Revision petition No.1725/2001 disposed of on 07.03.2002.
10. The placitum reads as follows:-
“ In a sovereign democratic and transparent society, it can’t be the case of the respondent that the investor in IVP forfeit the right to get the money back just because he losses the receipt of his 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 case. “
Deficiency of service 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 fell him” nothing can be done” in rendering no service by a public body, in this case the Govt. itself. On maturity money is not given instead of IVPs are kept in safe custody. For how long?.There are no instructions. This itself is deficiency. In a global village in which we are living, settlement of claims by the Swiss Banks with the next of the heirs of the people, who lost their lives in Germany during 2nd world war in the holo caust , should guide us in this regard of positive co-relationship between the service provider and the depositor.
11. In that case also the purchaser of I.V.Ps had lost and the maturity value was not released by the postal Authorities after expiry of the maturity date. On consideration of relevant rules and instructions issued under IVPs, the National Commission held that a pragmatic and dynamic view is required to be taken in a case when the complainant reports loss of IVPs. Necessary instruction should have been framed for the guidance of postal authorities in case of loss of the IVPs. Therefore, in absence of any other claim on the basis of the original IVPs the maturity value should be released in favour of the claimants after taking an indemnity bond to secure the interest of the department. We also prefer to subscribe the same view as laid down in the aforesaid revision petition. Thus we unhesitantly hold the lost IVPs be allowed to be paid/released payment in favour of the petitioner taking a dynamic and pragmatic approach and unable to accept the indigestive contentions of the O.P rather the prayer of the petitioner is fervidly allowed. Thus ordered.
ORDER
We hereby direct the O.P to release payment of the maturity value of 160 nos of IVPs bearing No.63C 112276 to 112295 and 2894 to 2913 respectively amounting to Rs 16,00,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakh) only, to the petitioner after furnishment of an indemnity bond from the petitioner within thirty-five days of this order. Non compliance will attract a penalty of Rs 20/- per day till realization.
The case is allowed without any cost and compensation.
ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH 2016.
( G.K.Rath) (P.Samantara)
MEMBER. PRESIDENT.
