Andhra Pradesh

Nellore

CC/48/2015

Amara Vijaya Lakshmi W/o. Subba Rao - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Superintendent of post Offices - Opp.Party(s)

Amara Vijaya Lakshmi

31 Dec 2015

ORDER

                                                             Date of filing       :  25-05-2015

                                                             Date of disposal  :  31-12-2015

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

           :: NELLORE ::

                                                       

Thursday, this the 31st day of DECEMBER, 2015.

 

          PRESENT:  Sri M.Subbarayudu Naidu, B.Com.,B.L., LL.M.        

                                      President(FAC)& Member

                                      Sri N.S.Kumara Swamy, B.Sc., LL.B., Member

                                      

                                 C.C.No.48/2015

 

Amara Vijaya Lakshmi,

W/o.Subba Rao,

10-6-19, Upstairs, Court Street,

Kavali-524201,

S.P.S.R.Nellore District.                                                   …         Complainant

 

                      Vs.                                                                          

                                                                             

1. The Superintendent of Post Offices,

Nellore Division, Nellore-524001

 

2. The Chief Postmaster General,

A.P.Circle, Hyderabad-500001.                     …           Opposite parties

 

This matter coming on 23-12-2015 before us for final hearing in the presence of  Complainant (appeared as in-person) and  Sri  J.C.S.Amarnath, Advocate for the  1^st opposite party and the 2^nd opposite party remained absent and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum passed the following:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

ORDER                                                                                                                                                                                                                          (BY SRI M.SUBBARAYUDU NAIDU, PRESIDENT (FAC) ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH)

 

    This  complaint is filed against the opposite parties 1 and 2 by the complainant in-person directing them jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.1,31,200/- (Indira Vikas Patras amount) which doubles in 5 years from 22-07-1988 to 22-07-2013 the amount doubles 5 times and calculates to Rs.96,000/- and from 22-07-2013 to 22-05-2015 the interest @ I.V.S. is Rs.35,200/- and the total is Rs.1,31,200/-)  and she is entitled to claim the said amount at the rate of her investment in I.V.Ps till today and also to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony which she had suffered for the last 27 years and pass such other relief or reliefs as the Hon’ble Consumer Forum may deemed it and proper in the circumstances of the case.

The factual matrix leading to filing of this consumer case is as stated as hereunder:

I(a) It is the case of the complainant-in-person had submitted that she had purchased Indira Vikas Patras for Rs.3000/- from Anemadugu post office (Near Kavali) on 22-07-1988 which bearing nos.(1)C4-292828 i.e., face value of Rs.2,500/- and (2)B2-455360 i.e., face value of Rs.500/- with Registration no.12.  The maturity value of the above said I.V.P.S. was Rs.6000/- payable to the complainant-in-person with interest @20%.

(b) It is also further submitted by the complainant-in-person in 2^nd para of her complaint that while shifting her residence from one rental house to another, an envelope which contained the said I.V.Ps, was lost and she had reported the matter to the police and also to the 1^st opposite party, Nellore and 2^nd opposite party at Hyderabad requesting them to pay the maturity value of the said I.V.Ps amount to her only.  But she did not get any reply from them.

(c)  While giving particulars of the complainant-in-person, she has further stated that seemingly   in a similar case of the said I.V.Ps, the Hon’ble Justice of our High Court of A.P. Sri C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy garu had ordered that the postal authorities to pay the amount to the claimant.  It was published in Eenadu daily news paper on 13-04-2014 i.e., Sunday on 29-4-2014 she had submitted the copy of the said news item on       13-4-2014 to the 1^st opposite party, Nellore and  2^nd opposite party at Hyderabad and copies of police report, postal receipts and copies of their acknowledgements.

(d)  It is also further submitted by the complainant-in-person at 2^nd page of her complaint that in his reply 1^st opposite party, Nellore had informed to her that duplicate Indira Vikas patras cannot be issued as per rulings.  She has not applied for duplicate I.V.Ps but wanted the cash should be paid for the said I.V.P.S.  On 21-08-2004, she had applied to the 2^nd opposite party, Hyderabad to pay back the said amount, respecting the said orders of the said Hon’ble High Court of A.P. but she could not able to get reply from 2^nd opposite party, Hyderabad. Hence, the complaint.

II DEFENCE:

       The 1^st opposite party, Nellore was resisted the complaint and filed a detailed written version/counter denying the allegations of the complainant in the complaint.  The complaint is neither just nor sustainable in law or on facts.  The 2^nd opposite party is absent and not filed any counter.

(i)It is the case of 1^st opposite party, Nellore that one Mr.A.Subba Rao, husband of the complainant-in-person, was a retired postal employee.  He had worked in the cadre of postal assistant/post-master in several post-offices under Kavali Head post office and he is well-acquainted about the postal rulings in that aspect.  By submitting further by 1^st opposite party, Nellore that Indira Vikas Patras (in short I.V.P.s) will not be issued to a particular person related to investor and so the I.V.P.s does not contain the name and address of the investor.  Therefore, no record is maintained at post-offices about the identification of the investor but only the registration number and serial number of the certificates issued against such serial numbers are noted in the issue register of I.V.Ps.  So, it is not possible to identify the real holder of the I.V.Ps in case that they were lost as the case may be.

(ii)  It is also further submitted by the 1^st opposite party in para-4 of its written version/counter that maintaining the details such as registration and date of purchase of I.V.P.s does not authenticate the ownership of the complainant.  The investor was provided with double face value of the IVPS for purchase, subject to the condition that he tenders the IVPS after expiry of five years from the date of purchase.  So, the production of I.V.Ps is mandatory for payment of maturity value as per Sub-rule12(1) under Rule-57 of post-office savings bank manual-II he was provided  with two folded face value of I.V.P.s.  The departmental ruling in connection with the lost IVPS, is re-produced.  As per sub-rule  10 under Rule-57 of post-office savings bank manual  Vol.II, an IVP lost, stolen or destroyed will not be replaced by issue of duplicate one and will not be given any amount to them.  The scheme of IVP was discontinued by Government of India with effect from 15-07-1999.

(iii) It is also further submitted by the 1^st opposite party, Nellore in para-5 of its written version/counter that in a similar case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its Judgment dt.05-04-2006 in Appeal(Civil) 4819/2000 regarding payment of maturity value of IVPS held that lost/stolen IVPS will not be entitled  for any payment as an IVP is akin to an ordinary currency note and it bears no  name of the holder.  Just as a lost currency note cannot be replaced, similarly the question of replacing a lost IVP does not arise.  So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party towards the complainant-in-person.  There are no merits or bonafides in filing the complaint and the same is not maintainable.  Hence, it is prayed further that the Hon’ble Consumer Forum may be dismissed with costs.

 

III. The complainant-in-person had filed her chief-affidavit on   28-09-2015 and the documents which were marked on behalf of her as Exs.A1 to A9 whereas the 1^st opposite party had also filed its chief-affidavit on                 04-11-2015 and the documents which were marked on behalf of 1^st opposite party as Exs.B1 to B3.  The complainant-in-person had also filed her written arguments on 1-12-2015 whereas the 1^st opposite party had also filed its written arguments on 4-11-2015 in support of their case.

 

IV.   Basing on the material available on the record, the points that arise for determination are namely:-

(a)Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite

    parties towards the complainant?

(b)Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as

    prayed for, if it is so, to what extent?

          (c) To what relief?

 

V.  POINTS 1 AND 2 :

     In view of these two points are inter-related and depends on each other, they have been taken up together for discussion and determination of the case.  The complainant has once again reiterated the facts of the case, basing on the complaint and documents filed herein.    It is nothing but repetition of them once again in his complaint.

 

Oral Submissions by the learned counsel for the complainant:

         Smt. Amara Vijaya Lakshmi, the complainant in-person has vehemently argued that she has filed the complaint for payment of the maturity value of Indira Vikas Patras had already purchased at Anemadugu post-office on 22-07-1988 for Rs.3,000/- as detailed in the complaint.  The maturity value of the I.V.P.s is Rs.6,000/- payable to her on 22-07-1993.  She has also further contended that the original IVPs are misplaced/lost and the same is reported to the police and postal authorities but not recovered. By reiterating the facts of the case as mentioned her written arguments of (in para 2^nd) the case and denied the allegations of the 1^st opposite party.  

   

     The said complainant in-person has also further contended that her claim in payment of the maturity value of I.V.Ps with interest.  She has also referred the judgment dt.27-3-2014 delivered by the Hon’ble High Court of A.P., Hyderabad, Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy garu in Second Appeal no.949/2013, the copy of it may be read as part and parcel of her oral arguments of the case. 

 

     She has also submitted that during her oral arguments of the case that the rule-57 sub-rule 10 of S.B.Manual Volume-2 which explains that an I.V.P. lost/stolen/destroyed, will not be replaced by issue of duplicate, is commented by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, Justice Arijit Pasayat J.  as “undisputedly there was no challenge to the legality of the Rule-7(2) is understood as illegal.  She has further urged that to protect the investors from such illegal, ambiguous, wholly or arbitrary of irrational schemes.  She has further submitted that with regard to ambiguous scheme which does not even refer name of the investor in the records, the Government cannot be allowed to make unjust, enrichment of private money. 

 

Documentary evidence is produced by the complainant - inperson:

    The complainant-in-person has further submitted that Ex.A1 is relating to the letter dt.19-08-1994 which addressed to the 1^st opposite party.  Ex.A5 is the registered letter dt.21-07-2014 from the 1^st opposite party to the complainant-in-person intimating to her that it is not possible to issue duplicate IVPS as per rulings.  Ex.A6 is the requisition letter dt.21-08-2014 addressed to chief-postmaster General by the complainant-in-person. Finally, she has also submitted that she is willing to execute indemnity bond for the amount as surety to the Government and in case if it is found incorrect, can recover the amount from her.  It is prayed that the Hon’ble Consumer Forum may be pleased to allow the complaint as prayed for, with costs.

 

    Oral Submissions by the learned counsel for the 1^st opposite party:

      On the other hand, Sri J.C.S.Amarnath, the learned counsel for the 1^st opposite party has also vehemently argued that the complaint, affidavit and written arguments may be read as part and parcel of his oral arguments. 

   He has further argued that the IVPs do not contain the name and address of the investor and there is no record maintained at post-office about the identification of the investor.  But, he has further contended that only the registration number and serial number of the certificates issued against such serial numbers are noted in the issue register of I.V.Ps.  There is no possibility to identity the real holder of the IVPs in case if they are lost.  It is true that production of IVPs is mandatory for payment maturity value as per sub-rule 12(1) under Rule-57 of post-office savings bank manual volume-II.

 

Documentary evidence is produced by the 1^st opposite party :

       The documents of 1^st opposite party are filed in support of its case.  Ex.B1 is relating to relevant rules in the manual with regarding to mode of payment, Ex.B2 is the copy of judgment dt.05-04-2006 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal 4819 of 2000, relating present subject of IVPS.  Ex.B3 is the III Annexure with regarding to encashment of IVPS, the procedure is laid down as per rule 57 – sub-rule 12(1) of post office savings bank manual  Vol.II.

      The said learned counsel for 1^st opposite party has further urged that in case of IVPs that are lost/stolen/destroyed, duplicates cannot be issued.  The scheme of I.V.P. was discontinued by Government of India with effect from 15-07-1999.  It is not possible to issue duplicate IVPs as per rulings.  Ex.A6 is the requisition letter dtd.21-08-2014 addressed to chief-postmaster general by the complainant-in-person. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party towards the complainant-in-person.  There are no bonafides in filing this complaint.  Hence, it is prayed that the Hon’ble Consumer Forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint with costs.

Forum’s Findings and observations

 

       Heard, the learned counsel for the both parties and perused the record very carefully. The nature of liability under the C.P.Act, 1986 is not strict liability but fault liability. Parties led their evidence by way of affidavits and produced their documentary evidence.  Every case has to be judged on its own facts. 

 

     To appreciate the controversy in this Consumer Case, it would be appropriate if we narrate all the circumstances of the case both on question of fact as well as on question of Law in detail.

 

    It is a peculiar case involved between the parties.  The crucial point is that whether the complainant-inperson has a remedy for her grievance, is for our consideration.  Now, we have on the record that the  copies of Hon’ble Apex court’s decision and our Hon’ble A.P.High Court of A.P. on the subject of “IVPS” in the post-offices maintained by the Government of India.  The scheme of IVPS in the post-offices was dis-continued from 15-07-1999.

 

Case -Law:

       We are relying upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its case that reported in 2002(4) SCC 388 at para 41, it held that the role of judiciary is merely interpret and declare the law, was the concept of a bygone age, it is fairly the settled concept that the Courts can so mould and lay down the law formulating principles and guidelines to adopt and adjust to the changing conditions of Society in dispensation of justice.

 

    Even if substantive law causes injustice while dealing the matter, the Consumer Fora are entitled to mould the relief appropriately, where statute is silent and judicial intervention is required.  The courts are strive to redress grievances according to what it perceived to be principles of justice, equity and good conscience.   In AIR 2001 SC 1213, it held that no court ought to base its decision on technicalities alone.

 

     The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is for the Protection of the consumers and matters are required to be decided by having a rational approach and not technical one.  This is made clear in the case of Indian Photographic Company Ltd. Vs.H.D.Shourie – (1999) 6 S.C.C.428.

 

   The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 confers equity jurisdiction on the Consumer For a i.e., to decide the cases on the basis of justice, equity and good conscience.  So render “just and equitable justice to the Consumers, is our function. Justice delivery system by the Consumer Fora should be with utmost-promptitude.

 

Reasons for order:

 

The quasi-judicial authority, this Consumer Forum must record reasons in support of its conclusions. – 2011 CTJ (SC) CP page no.128.

 

1. The judicial intervention is required to do justice to the concerned person (complainant-in-person).  Consumer For a should mould reliefs and which is suitable basing upon the facts and circumstances of each case.

 

2. In view of the opinion of our Hon’ble A.P.High Court’s said decision as stated above, is “ambiguous scheme”. And it is clearly amounts to “unjust enrichment” by Govt. of India.  It is unjustified.  The right person is entitled to get the required amount as the case may be.

 

3. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, it is clearly caused injustice to the complainant in person.   She is deprived of the benefit which she is entitled to get  from the Govt.of India.

 

   We have bestowed our best of consideration to the rival submissions of the parties.  The complainant-in-person has brought to the notice of higher officials about her IVPS which were lost in the year 19-08-1994 (Ex.A1).  Presumption is an inference drawn by the Forum as to the truth of a particular fact other known are proved facts.  With regard to the issue register which contained  IVPS serial nos. maintained  by the 1^st opposite party and 1^st opposite party alone to say that concerned IVPS are encashed by  anybody or not so far.  Is there any entry in the books or yet to be encahsed the value of said IVPS which are maintained by the 1^st opposite party, being a postal authority?  In absence of details which are not furnished by the 1^st opposite party to the Forum, gives us an impression that those IVPS are not encashed so far.  Double amount of the pace value of those said IVPS, is to be payable to the complainant in-person by the 1^st opposite party.  She is not entitled the amount as alleged and claimed by her in the complaint.  In the process of decision making, appreciation of evidentiary value of those documents filed herein by the parties, utmost importance.  Every case is presents its own peculiarities, commonsense and shrewdness must be brought to bear upon the facts elicited in very case.  The legal consequences are drawing a presumption is to cast on the opponent, the duty of producing contrary evidence.  The concerned sl.nos of IVPS which are noted therein the issue register, is not before us for scrutiny.  An adverse inference against a party is usually drawn, if he deliberately abstains from adducing better evidence, which is in a position to adduce.  The other reliefs granted which are mentioned below are payable to the complainant’s person by the opposite parties.

       Section 14 of C.P.Act, 1986 which provides for adequate compensation would certainly mean that the complainant-in-person who is deprived of the benefit which he is entitled for years together, he/she should be adequately compensated. There is a force in the arguments of the said complainant-in-person.  We are convinced with her arguments of the case.  There is a lot of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties towards the complaint-in-person.  Mental worry cannot be measured in terms of money.  The complainant in-person has already suffered years together to get her amount from the opposite parties. These two points are held in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties, accordingly.

 

POINT NO.3:  In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, ordering the opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.6,000/- (Rupees six thousand only) towards the maturity value of Indira Vikas Patras (I.V.P.s) along with interest @9%p.a.(nine) to the complainant from the date of the complaint i.e., 25-05-2015 till the date of realization, to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation for his mental agony and also to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards the costs of this complaint, within one month from the date of the receipt of the order.  It is further ordered that the complainant shall be furnished the indemnity bond to the postal authorities, as per the postal rules.

Typed to the dictation to the stenographer and corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum this the 31st day of DECEMBER, 2015.    

                                                       

    Sd/-                                                                           Sd/-

         MEMBER                                                                 PRESIDENT(FAC)

  APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR COMPLAINANT:

 

PW1

28-09-2015

:

Amaraja Vijaya Lakshmi, W/o.Amara Subba Rao, aged about 62 years, resident of D.No.10-6-19 Upstairs, Court Street, Kavali-524201, SPSR Nellore District.

 

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES:

RW1

04-11-2015

:

P.Viswanadham, S/o.P.Ramaiah, Hindu, aged about 58 years working as Superintendant of Post Offices, Nellore.

                                                                             

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR COMPLAINANT:

 

Ex.A1	19-08-1994	:	Copy of letter addressed to Senior Superintendent of post offices, Nellore.
Ex.A2	19-08-1994	:	Copies of registered letter receipt No.2846 addressed to SSPOs Nellore and his acknowledgement dt.22-08-1994.
Ex.A3	19-08-1994	:	Copies of registered letter receipt No.2845 addressed to Sub Inspector of Police, Kavali and his acknowledgement dt.20-08-1994.
Ex.A4	13-04-2014	:	Copy of News of judgment by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of High court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad Sri C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy garu, published in Eenadu Telugu daily news paper.
Ex.A5     Ex.A6         Ex.A7     Ex.A8     Ex.A9	21-07-2014     21-08-2014         30-04-2014     30-04-2014     30-04-2014	:     :         :     :     :	The complainant received copy of letter addressed by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Nellore.   Photostat copy of representation submitted to the Chief Postmaster General Hyderabad Sri B.V.Sudhakar Naidu, I.P.S.through postmaster, Kavali H.O.   RL receipt No.ARN 665 580861IN A/T Supdt. Of P.Os, Nellore and along with acknowledgement.   RL receipt No.ARN 665 580889 IN A/T Supdt. Of P.Os, Nellore and along with acknowledgement.   RL receipt No.ARN 665 580875 IN dtd.30-04-2014 A/T CPMG Hyderabad and his ack.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES:                      

 

Ex.B1	-	:	Photostat copy of Kisan Vikas Patras rule-56(1) and procedure.
Ex.B2             Ex.B3	05-04-2006                         -	:             :	A copy of judgment in appeal(civil) 4819/2000 regarding payment/issue of duplicate IVP’s in lieu of lost/stolen IVP’s will not be entitled for any claim for lost/stolen IVPs as an IVP is akin to an ordinary currency note and it bears no name of the holder along with copy of letter.   Sub Rule 12(1) under Rule 57 of post office Savings Bank Manual Volume-II.

 

         Id/-                                                                                  PRESIDENT(FAC)

Copies to:

1) Amara Vijaya Lakshmi,  W/o.Subba Rao,  10-6-19, Upstairs, Court Street, Kavali- 

    524201,S.P.S.R.Nellore District.

 

2) Sri J.S.Amarnath, Advocate, Ramesh Reddy Nagar, Nellore.

          

3) The Chief Postmaster General, A.P.Circle, Hyderabad-500001.                    

 

Date when order copies are issued: