Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/577

Sandeep Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Union of India Dept.of Post - Opp.Party(s)

R.K.Sahrma Adv.

06 Dec 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 577 of 24.09.2015

Date of Decision            :   06.12.2016 

 

Sandeep Kumar, aged 31 years son of Sh. Hans Raj, resident of House No.2374/31-A, Anand Vihar Colony, Chander Nagar, Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

 

1.Union of India Department of Post & Telegram New Delhi, through its Secretary.

2.The Post Master, Post Office, Bharat Nagar Chowk, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana.

 

…Opposite parties

             (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

 

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT                                     

MRS.          VINOD BALA, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :          Sh.Alok Mohindra, Advocate

For Ops                          :          Sh.Ankur Ghai, Advocate

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                Complainant along with his friend namely Raj Kumar visited the premises of OP2 for investment of Rs.25,000/- in the name of his minor son Aditya Soin in scheme known as ‘Kisan Vikas Patra’(hereinafter in short referred to as ‘KVP’). Employee of OP2 disclosed that as per scheme, the complainant will get the invested amount payable after period of 5 years and 6 months. Employees of OP2 did show the complainant certificate specifically mentioning of tenure of five years and six months. On the back of this certificate, it was mentioned that amount of Rs.5000/-will become Rs.10,000/- after the period of 5 years and 6 months. So, the complainant purchased five KVP bearing No.61BC 792953 to 61BC 792957(mentioned in amended complaint) of amount of Rs.5000/- each in the name of his son Aditya Soin. Maturity date of these KVP was mentioned as 18.7.2015 printed on the back side of schedule. On 20.7.2015 i.e. after expiry of five years and six months, the complainant visited the office of OP2 for requesting him to pay the maturity amount of above referred KVP, but instead of making the payment of Rs.50,000/-, they returned the KVP by disclosing that the invested amount will become payable after 8 years and 7 months only, which is the maturity period. Complainant was shocked to hear about the same. Had the complainant got knowledge of invested amount going double after eight years and seven months, then the complainant would not have invested the amount in KVP, but he would have invested the amount in some other scheme. Due to mis-representation made by the employees of OP2, complainant suffered a lot of mental pain, agony and harassment and as such, he claims compensation to the tune of Rs.1 lac over and above the maturity amount of Rs.50,000/-. Even direction sought against Ops to pay Rs.11,000/- as cost of legal notice dated 23.7.2015 served by the complainant on Ops.

2.                In written statement filed by Ops jointly, it is pleaded interalia as if complaint is false and frivolous, complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands; complaint is just abuse of process of law; rate of interest on invested amount is fixed by the Government of India vide notification dated 5.3.2003 and as such, interest is payable as per that notification alone. Besides, it is claimed that the complainant Sh.Sandeep Kumar never approached Op2 with desire of investing the amount. Rather, complainant purchased KVP through an authorized agent and as such, question of mis-leading the complainant does not arise. The amount would have been doubled after period of eight years and seven months. No Government Department/officials can make false representation regarding the prescribed rate of interest. Moreover, the complainant being responsible citizen deemed to know the law. Even at the time of issue of KVP, it was made known to the agents as to what is existing rate of interest. KVP handed over to Ops by the Government for issuance. These documents were printed a long time back. Bonds/documents, on which, KVP were issued were old and that is why they were carrying on the old interest rate. These documents were not discontinued and that is why, those were issued. The documents produced by the complainant are few of those old continued bonds. However, the existing rate of interest is not mentioned on these bonds/documents. Complaint alleged to be filed for extorting money because it is not in the hands of Ops to quote the rate of interest. Sole prerogative specifying rate of interest is of Government of India. The total interest was equivalent to market rate of interest only. Complainant has to be aware and cautious of the prevalent rate of interest as notified by the Government of India. Factum regarding purchase of five KVP in question in the name of Aditya Soin by the complainant not denied, but each and every other allegations of the complaint denied by claiming that invested amount to become double after eight years and seven months only.

3.                Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA along with that of his friend namely Sh.Raj Kumar as Ex.CB as well as documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C16 and thereafter, his counsel closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Satpal Pahwa, Senior Post Master of OP2 along with documents Ex.R1 & Ex.R2 tendered by counsel for Ops and thereafter, he closed the evidence.

5.                Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties. Oral arguments alone addressed and those were heard. Records gone through minutely.

6.                Counsel for complainant after taking us through photo stat copies of produced KVPs Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 along with backside endorsement of the schedule Ex.C6 to Ex.C10 vehemently argued that on these KVPs itself, it is mentioned that invested amount of Rs.5000/- will go double on maturity after lapse of 5 years and 6 months and as such, the complainant entitled to double of the invested amount after 18.7.2015 because these KVPs purchased on 18.10.2010. However, counsel for Ops vehemently contends that amount of interest or the maturity amount payable as per the terms of notification issued by the Government of India only and as such, complainant entitled to double of the invested amount after 8 years and 7 months only as stipulated by the notification Ex.C15=Ex.R2.

7.                After going through Ex.C15=Ex.R2, it is made out that reduction in the  interest rates of the previous post office saving scheme ordered by the Government of India w.e.f.1.3.2003. As per this notification, the amount invested in KVP will be double after expiry of maturity period of 8 years and 7 months only. This notification Ex.R2=Ex.C15 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Communication & I.T.Department of Posts F.S.Division on 5.3.2003, but KVP Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 were purchased on 18.1.2010 and as such, certainly rules and regulations in force qua the rate of interest provided for payment of double of the invested amount in KVP after 8 years and 7 months only. Earlier, the invested amount in KVP was to go double in period of 5 years and 6 months and that is why print of the same exists on Ex.C6 to Ex.C10.

8.       Government Agencies on behalf of Government of India cannot enter into contract in violation of the circular or regulations or rules framed by the Government of India. In case, it is done so, the contract is enforceable to the extent of conformity with rules and regulations in force on the date of entering into contract, which in this case is 18.1.2010,the date on which purchase of KVPs took place as disclosed by the contents of Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 as referred above.

9.                As per Section 23 of The Indian Contract Act, 1872, consideration or object on an agreement is lawful, unless it is forbidden by law or is of such a nature that, if permitted, it would defeat the provisions of any law or is fraudulent. In case,  agreement arrived at through issue of KVP in question enforced by treating the period of maturity as 5 years and 6 months as endorsed on Ex.C6 to Ex.C10, then the same will defeat the provisions of law contained in notification Ex.C15=Ex.R2 issued by the Government of India. So, enforcement of agreement in question permissible only to the extent the same does not defeat the terms of notification Ex.C15=Ex.R2.         As per Section 10 of The Indian Contract Act, 1872, all agreements are contracts, if they are made by the free consent of parties competent to contract, for a lawful consideration and with lawful object, and are not hereby expressly declared to be void. As per proviso of Section 10 of The Indian Contract Act, 1872, the provision of law enforceable in India not to be hit by the agreement or contract arrived at between the parties competent to contract. So, in view of Section 10 read with Section 23 of The Indian Contract Act, 1872, the contract in question enforceable to the extent it does not go against the rules and regulations framed by the Government of India through notification Ex.C15=Ex.R2. Being so, submission advanced by counsel for Ops has force that total of the invested amount in KVPs Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 to go double only after lapse of 8 years and 7 months as stipulated through Ex.C15=Ex.R2. So, contract in question enforceable to this extent only and not beyond that.

10.              Even if the contract enforceable to the extent indicated above, despite that deficiency in service on the part of OP2 certainly is there because he did not incorporate entries of revised maturity period as 8 years and 7 months on Ex.C5 to Ex.C10 as required by SECTION IX clause 2(a) of Ex.C15=Ex.R2. That clause provides that KVPs from the post office will be issued after entries are made on them in manuscript or by means of Rubber Stamps as “Maturity period revised as eight years and seven months”. Further supply of KVPs by the Head Office to Post Offices under their jurisdiction will be made only after the above endorsement on the certificates has been made. As per SECTION IX clause 2(e) of Ex.C15=Ex.R2, the Heads of circles will ensure that an officer in each circle’s Headquarter and Regional Office and the Postmaster in each Post Office is personally made responsible to check that the aforesaid changes are mentioned at all relevant places in the passbook and also on the format of the Patra. In view of these clauses of Ex.C15=Ex.R2, it is obvious that KVP in the hands of customer will reach only after endorsement of revised period of maturity. Personal responsibility of making such endorsement is of the officials of Post Office. However that endorsement has not been made in manuscript or with the rubber stamps on any of the KVPs, copies of which are produced on record as Ex.C1 to Ex.C10. So, deficiency in service is on the part of Ops to this extent certainly. For this deficiency in service, complainant is liable to be compensated for mental harassment. However, each and every citizen bound to know the law of land and circular/notification Ex.C15=Ex.R2 has force of law and as such, in view of said notification being public document, of which, judicial notice can be taken as per Section 57 (6) of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, it is obvious that meager compensation should be allowed, so that officials of Post Office does not shirk in their duties to comply with the requirements of the notification issued by the Central Government through Ministry of Finance.

11.              It is vehemently contended by Sh.Alok Mohindra, Advocate representing complainant that terms and conditions of the written documents alone to be taken into consideration and evidence in variance to those terms and conditions not permissible as per Section 92 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Reliance for the purpose is placed on ratio of cases titled as Vijay Kumar and another vs. Punjab Financial Corporation and another-2002(3)R.C.R.(Civil)-226(Punjab & Haryana High Court); Subodh Choudhary vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and another-2012(1)CPJ-258(N.C.); S.Saktivel (dead) by Lrs. Vs. M.Venugopal Pillai-2000 AIR (SC) 2633 and M/s.Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P.) Ltd. vs. United India Insurance Co.Ltd and another-2011(1)CLT-485(Supreme Court of India). However, benefit from ratio of these cases not available to counsel for the complainant because as already pointed above, agreements enforceable as contracts only to the extent of their being not inconsistent with the rules, regulations and by-laws having force of law. Specific reference to Section 10 and 23 of The Indian Contract Act, 1872 has been made in this respect in Para no.9 of this                     order. As the notifications issued by the Ministry of Finance or Communications of Government of India like Ex.C15=Ex.R2 has force of law and as such, complainant not entitled to interest in excess of the stipulated one through these notifications. Being so legally also the complainant entitled to interest as per terms of notification Ex.C15=Ex.R2 only and not in excess of that, albeit liability of Ops for deficiency in service pointed above is to the extent of payment of compensation for mental harassment and litigation expenses only. Liability of Ops will be joint and several because after such payment, OP1 may recover the amount of compensation and litigation expenses from incumbent of OP2 posted at the time of issue of Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 or from such officials as it deem fit. That recovery possible in departmental proceedings qua which prerogative is of OP1 only being Principal.

12.              As a sequel of the above discussion, complaint partly allowed in terms that complainant will be entitled to interest on Kisan Vikas Patra as per circular Ex.C15=Ex.R2 only. However, compensation for mental harassment of Rs.3000/-(Rupees Three thousand only) and litigation expenses of Rs.2000/-(Rupees Two thousand only) more allowed in favour of complainant and against Ops. Liability of Ops held joint and several. However, Op1 after payment may recover the amount of compensation and litigation costs from the incumbent of OP2 posted at the time of issue of Ex.C1 to Ex.C5. Payment of compensation and litigation expenses be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules.

13.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                   (Vinod Bala)                                (G.K. Dhir)

          Member                                          President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:06.12.2016

Gurpreet Sharma.