BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.175 of 2015
Date of Instt. 27.04.2015
Date of Decision : 4.1.2016
1. Sukhjinder Abrol, wife of Dr.V.S.Abrol;
2. Jasleen Abrol, dauther of Dr.V.S.Abrol;
Both residents of House No.394-95, Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Jalandhar.
..........Complainants Versus
1. Union of India, Postal Department, through its Secretary, Dak Bhawan, Patel Chowk, New Delhi-110001.
2. Senior Post Master, General Post Office, Jalandhar-144001.
.........Opposite parties.
Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh.Ashwani Kumar Mehta (President)
Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)
Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Sh.H.V.Kohli Adv., counsel for complainants.
Sh.Hukam Chand Adv., counsel for opposite parties.
Order
Ashwani Kumar Mehta (President)
1. Complainant Sukhjinder Abrol etc filed the present complaint against Union of India etc (OPs) under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act on the allegations of deficiency and negligence in service and for directing the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.1 Lac to the complainant on maturity of Kisan Vikas Patras alongwith 18% interest, Rs.1 Lac as compensation for harassment and mental agony and Rs.22000/- as cost of litigation.
2. The case of the complainant is that they are resident of Jalandhar and purchased Kisan Vikas Patras for Rs.50,000/- on 18.3.2006 in the denomination of Rs.10,000/- each; that the OPs issued five Kisan Vikas Patras bearing Nos.62CD 914739 to 62CD 914743 which were to mature after eight years on 18.10.2014 and complainants were entitled for Rs.20,000/- for each Kisan Vikas Patras as per government policy; that after maturity, complainant approached OP No.2 for release of maturity amount and also produced the original Kisan Vikas Patras to OP No.2 but OP No.2 did not release the amount to him rather put of the matter on one pretext or the other pretext; that due to conduct of OP No.2, husband of complainant No.1 filed an application on 21.11.2014 to OP No.2 but was surprised to have reply dated 28.11.2014 that as per office record, certificates in question do not stand issued in the name of complainant; that even thereafter complainants approached OP No.2 many times but OP No.2 did not accept the genuine request of the complainants and did not disburse the amount of Kisan Vikas Patras in question; that act and conduct of the OPs, amounts to deficiency and negligence in service and it has caused harassment and mental agony and also financial loss to the complainant due to which reason, complainant served a legal notice dated 23.12.2014 on the OPs for release of maturity amount but inspite of that, OP failed to release the maturity amount to the complainants. Hence complaint was filed.
2. After formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to the OPs and OPs appeared through counsel and filed written statement contesting the complaint on the preliminary objections that complainants have not approached the Forum with clean hands and have suppressed the material facts from this Forum. It was asserted that actually as per office record, Kisan Vikas Patras bearing Nos.62CD 914739 to 62CD 914744 were issued under registration No.234813 on 23.3.2006 amounting to Rs.60,000/- in the denomination of Rs.10,000/- each in the name of Geetu Karpal, Harbans Nagar, Jalandhar and later on said Kisan Vikas Patras were reported to have been lost by the holder and duplicate Kisan Vikas Patras bearing Nos.45CD 369971 to 45CD 369976 were issued on 5.5.2006 in lieu of lost Kisan Vikas Patras and the same has been got encashed by the holder on 9.6.2012 pre-maturely. It was further asserted that application for purchase of Kisan Vikas Patras bearing Nos.62CD 914739 to 62CD 914744 was received in the office of OP through SAS agent Manjit Singh and as per department instructions, the Kisan Vikas Patras were handed over to said agent for delivery to the party. It was further asserted that as per information supplied by Senior Postmaster, Jalandhar Head Office, Kisan Vikas Patras bearing Nos.62CD 914572 to 576 were issued in the name of Tarlochan Singh and Mota Singh amounting to Rs.50,000/- in the denomination of Rs.10,000/- each under registration No.234708 and the same have been discharged on 21.10.2014 and payment was made through cheque No.261184; that complainants have no locus-standi to file the present complaint and have got no cause of action and complaint is also bad for non joinder of necessary parties as agent Manjit Singh has not been joined as party and complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, the complaint has been contested on the same lines as were taken in the preliminary objections and it was asserted that a application dated 21.11.2014 was received in the office of opposite parties and reply to the said application was given vide letter dated 28.11.2014. It was asserted that as the Kisan Vikas Patras in question were not issued in the name of complainant as per office record, therefore payment could not be made to the complainant. All other allegations mentioned in the complaint were also denied with a prayer to dismiss the complaint.
3. Both the parties were given sufficient opportunities to lead evidence in order to prove their respective case.
4. In support of their complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.CW1/A and Ex.CW2/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C14 and closed evidence.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.OP1/A alongwith documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP7 and closed evidence.
6. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the parties.
7. The learned counsel for the complainant contended that complainant purchased the Kisan Vikas Patras on 18.3.2006 for Rs.50,000/- in the denomination of Rs.10,000/- each and the same were to mature on 18.10.2014 and after maturity of Kisan Vikas Patras, the complainant applied for release of amount to the OPs but OPs took a false plea that the Kisan Vikas Patras in questions have not been issued to the complainant but to different person and failed to release the amount inspite of many visits and requests and it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and it has also caused harassment and mental agony and also financial loss to the complainant. He further contended that OPs took plea in the written statement that the Kisan Vikas Patras in questions were issued in the name of Geetu Karpal who reported the same to have been lost and consequently duplicate certificates were issued to her and she got the same encashed pre-maturely but OPs did not comply with conditions required for issuance of duplicate certificate as provided in rule 10 of Kisan Vikas Patras Rules. He also contended that the original Kisan Vikas Patras are in possession of the complainant and there is no over writing on the name or registration number and these certificates bear the stamp of office as well as signature of the official which shows that these certificates are genuine and as such complaint is required to be allowed and OP is required to be directed to release the maturity amount of Kisan Vikas Patras in question alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses as mentioned in the complaint.
8. The learned counsel for the OPs contended that Kisan Vikas Patras in question bearing serial Nos.62CD 914739 to 62CD 914743 alongwith one more certificate were issued to one Geetu Karpal but under different registration No.234813 on 23.03.2006 and said Geetu Karpal reported to OPs that the said certificates have been lost and thereafter she was issued duplicate certificates bearing No.45CD 369971 to 45CD 369976 on 5.5.2006 in lieu of lost Kisan Vikas Patras and said Geetu Karpal got encashed the same on 9.6.2012 pre-maturely. It was further argued that Kisan Vikas Patras bearing Nos.62CD 914572 to 576 were issued under the registration No.234708 for Rs.50,000/- in the denomination of Rs.10,000/- each to Tarlochan Singh and Mota Singh and same were discharged on 21.10.2014 and payment was made through cheque. He further contended that the record produced by the OP shows that the Kisan Vikas Patras in question were not issued in the name of complainant rather Kisan Vikas Patras bearing disputed serial number were reported lost and duplicate certificates were issued and as such complainants are not genuine holder of Kisan Vikas Patras in dispute as the same has not been issued in the name of complainants and as such complainants are not entitled for payment for the Kisan Vikas Patras in dispute and same has been rightly denied to the complainant and as such complaint is liable to be dismissed with special cost.
9. After going through the record of the case, documents and evidence produced by the parties on the file, this Forum finds force in the contention of learned counsel for the complainant. Complainant Sukhjinder Abrol proved affidavit Ex.CW1/A and Dr.V.S.Abrol, husband of complainant Sukhjinder Abrol, proved affidavit Ex.CW2/A in which they retreated the allegations of the complaint in verbatim. Complainants have also proved photocopies of the Kisan Vikas Patras in question Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and also produced original Kisan Vikas Patras in the Forum for inspection. The Kisan Vikas Patras in question do not bear any over writing on the name of holder nor there is any over writing on the registration number or on the date and these Kisan Vikas Patras also bear the postal rubber stamp of the office and signature of the issuing officials. There is no allegations from the OPs that Kisan Vikas Patras Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 are forged Kisan Vikas Patras. Moreover, if Kisan Vikas Patras in question bearing disputed serial number have been issued in the name of Geetu Karpal then these Kisan Vikas Patras should bear the name of Geetu Karpal on its face but Kisan Vikas Patras in question proved on the file does not show that these were ever issued to Geetu Karpal rather these Kisan Vikas Patras clearly shows that these were actually issued to Sukhjinder Abrol and Jasleen Abrol on 18.3.2006 under registration No.234708. Normally whenever Kisan Vikas Patras are issued by the postal office then these are to be entered in the register but no register has been produced on the file by the OPs rather simply application Ex.OP3/OP4, Ex.OP5/OP6 are proved on the file which is not the proper record of the OP. These applications can be manipulated later on but definitely the register where the entry is made at the time of issue of Kisan Vikas Patras can not be easily manipulated. Otherwise also, the replacement of lost or destroyed certificates are to be issued under rule 10 of Kisan Vikas Patras Rules which is reproduced as under:-
“10. Replacement of lost or destroyed certificates:-(1) if a certificate is lost, stolen, destroyed, mutilated or defaced, the person or persons entitled thereto may apply for the issue of a duplicate certificate to the post office of issue
(2) Where an application under sub rule(1) has been made to a post office other than the post office of issue, the said post office shall forward such application to the post office of issue.
(3) every application under sub rule (1) shall be accompanied by :-
(a) a statement showing particulars, such as, numbers, amount and date of the certificate and the circumstances attending such loss, theft, destruction, mutilation or defacement;
(b) identify slip, if any;
(4) If the postmaster of the post office of the issue is satisfied as to the loss, theft, destruction, mutilation or defacement of the certificate, he shall issue a duplicate certificate on the applicant's furnishing an indemnity bond in form laid down by Department of Posts with one or more sureties or with a bank's guarantee;
Provided that where such application is made with respect to a certificate mutilated or defaced, a duplicate certificate may be issued without any such indemnity bond, surety or guarantee, if the certificate mutilated or defaced and the identity slip, if any, are surrendered and the certificate is capable of being identified as the one originally issued.
(5) A duplicate certificate issued under sub rule (4) shall be treated as equivalent to the original certificate for all the purposes, except that it shall not be encashable at a post office other than the post office of issue without previous verification”.
10. The bare reading of rule 10 of Kisan Vikas Patras Rules shows that duplicate certificate is to be issued in lieu of lost Kisan Vikas Patras certificate but this duplicate certificate is to be issued when indemnity bond with one or more surety or bank guarantee have been furnished by the original holder of Kisan Vikas Patras but fresh Kisan Vikas Patras are not to be issued in lieu of lost Kisan Vikas Patras because the duplicate certificate issued in lieu of lost certificate is to be treated as equivalent to original certificates for all purposes. If fresh certificates are to be issued as in the case in hand then there was no necessity to provide sub rule 5 of rule 10 that duplicate certificate is to be treated as equivalent to original certificates. As such, the department has not complied with rule 10 of Kisan Vikas Patras rules while issuing duplicate certificate in lieu of alleged lost certificates. Otherwise also, the Kisan Vikas Patras certificates produced by the complainant on the file shows that these were originally issued in the name of complainant Sukhjinder Abrol and Jasleen Abrol as these certificates do not bear the name of Geetu Karpal nor there is any over writing or cutting on the Kisan Vikas Patras in dispute. A plea was taken by the OP in the written statement that a enquiry was conducted by the OP department but complainants did not corporate in the enquiry as they did not appear before the inquiry officer and as such complainants are required to be directed to appear before the enquiry officer. The Forum does not find force in the contention of the OP because complainants contacted the OPs many times and also produced the original certificate before the concerned official with request to release the maturity amount of the Kisan Vikas Patras but with no effect. Thereafter complainant filed application Ex.C6 and also gave legal notice Ex.C8 to the OP for release of maturity amount but again with no effect. The Kisan Vikas Patras in question matured on 18.10.2014 and almost more than one year have passed and as such complainant can not be asked to wait for indefinite period for receiving maturity amount of Kisan Vikas Patras in question when apparently there seems no fault on the part of the complainants. It is duty of the OPs to conclude the departmental inquiry at the earliest so that grievance of the complainant can be rectified and if complainant have forged the certificates then action should have been taken against the complainant but no such step have been taken by the OP so far which shows that the plea taken by OP is only to delay the matter. On the contrary, complainants have original certificates with them and these certificates do not bear any cutting or over writing on any part of the Kisan Vikas Patras in question and there is no logical explanation from the side of OP for denying payment of maturity amount of Kisan Vikas Patras in question to the complainant. As such it can be safely concluded that the complainants have proved case on the file and they are entitled for maturity amount of the Kisan Vikas Patras in question though OP can proceed against defaulting person for recovery of payment or any other relief in accordance with law.
10. In the light of above discussion, the present complaint succeed and same is hereby allowed with cost in favour of the complainant and against the OPs and OPs are directed to release the maturity amount of Kisan Vikas Patras in question to the complainants and as the payment has been delayed by the OPs, therefore, OPs are also directed to pay interest @ 9% per annum on the maturity amounts from the date of maturity till realization. The OPs is also burdened with Rs.2000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony suffered by the complainant due to refusal of the OPs to honour the Kisan Vikas Patras and to release the maturity amount to the complainants and complainants are also held entitled to Rs.2000/- as cost of litigation to be recovered from the OPs. The OPs are directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which complainant can proceed under section 25/27 of C.P.Act. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Ashwani Kumar Mehta
04.01.2016 Member Member President
