Adv.for the complainant-. Sri B.S.Sathpathy
Adv.for the O.P - Sri S.K.Mishra.
Date of filing of the case:- 15.09.2016
Date of order :- 29.03.2017
JUDGMENT.
Sri A.K.Purohit, President
- The case of the complainant is that, Late Sita Devi Jain during her life time had purchased 105
numbers of Indira vikas patra bearing No: 63C 112506 to 63C 112565 and 63C 113738 to 63C 113782, which were lost in June 2001 while the same was in the custody of Late Ram Chandra Jain, which was reported before the Local P.S. by Late Ram Chandra Jain vide S.D.E. No: 479 of 2001 – The complainant being the only heir & successor has claimed the maturity value of the said IVP and had send a notice on dt. 10.05.2014 which was rejected by the OP. Further the complainant has pleaded that, two beneficiaries has already been sanctioned by the OP. for the claim amount and denied to the complainant’s claim is not in same standard which amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the Complainant.
- The OP. has contested the case by filing his written version. According to the OP. no formal
application is necessary for purchase of IVPS and in case of IVP is purchased by cash, identity of the purchaser is nether recorded by the post office in any document nor any receipt is granted at the time of sale of IVPS. Further the OP. has averred that, IVP is a bearer instrument just like currency note and the bearer is the owner of the IVP and there is no evidence on behalf of the complainant that he is the owner of the IVP. Hence his claim was rejected under the provisions of IVP Rule-1986. The OP. denied the complainant’s allegation and claims for dismissal of the case.
- Heard both the parties. Perused the material available on record. It is submitted on behalf of the
complainant that, this forum has allowed C.C. No: 39 of 15 and C.C.No.43 of 15 which are similar cases and this case has to be allowed . In my Opinion each case has to be considered on its own merit and hence this submission cannot be accepted. Further referring to the Order passed by the Hon’ble State Commission in C.D. Appeal No: 603 of 2003 ( Dept. of post Vrs Bharpai Devi Jain), the complainant submitted that, the IVP be released in favour of the complainant after executing an indemnity bond.
- The above referred case is different from the facts & circumstances of this case. In the present
Case, the cause of action arose on dt.11.04.2002 when the claim of Ram Chandra Jain was rejected by the OP. , and this case has been filed on dt.15.09.2016 , i.e. after 14 years after the cause of action arose , hence the present case is barred by limitation.
- Further , the case of the complainant is that , 692 numbers of IVP are lost while it was in the
custody of Late Rama Chandra Jain and his claim was rejected by the OP on dt.11.04.2002. Now the Complainant claims that, Out of the said 692 IVPs, 150 IVPs are his mother’s property and he being the only heir & successors is entitled to the maturity value of 150 IVPS . The mother of the complainant Late Sita Devi Jain died on dt.30.12.2007 and during her Lifetime, she never claims that, she is the Owner of 150 nos of IVP. For the first time the complainant sent an advocate notice on dt. 10.05.2014 claiming 150 nos of IVP , i,e. after 12 years from the date of cause of action . It is not in dispute that, the IVP is a bearer instrument and it does not contents the name of the bearer. Therefore in this case it is to be decided whether out of the lost 692 IVPS from the custody of Rama Chandra Jain, 150 nos of IVPS are purchased in the name of Late Sita Devi Jain and the complainant being the only heir & successor is entitled to the maturity value , which requires detailed examination of witnesses and documents, which is not possible in a summary procedure. In this context it is relevant to quote Para 13 of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2006 (CTJ) 1073 Supreme court (CP) in Oriental Insurance Co. Vrs. Munimahesh Patel “ The nature of the proceedings before the commission as noted above are essentially in summary nature . The factual position was required to be established by documents. Commission was required to examine whether in view of the disputed facts it would exercise the jurisdiction. The state commission was right in its view that the complex factual position requires that the matter should be examined by appropriate court of law & not by the commission‘’.
- Under the aforesaid facts & circumstances the complainant may approach a regular court of Law
if so advised.
Accordingly the case of the Complainant is dismissed.
ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM THIS The 29th DAY OF MARCH’2017.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
(S.Rath) (G.K.Rath) (A.K.Purohit)
MEMBER. MEMBER. PRESIDENT
