M/S. BHAGWATI VANASPATI TRADERS versus SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, MEERUT

Citation: [2014] 10 S.C.R. 762 · Decided: 10-10-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. KHEHAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2014] 10 S.C.R. 762 
MIS. BHAGWATI VANASPATI TRADERS 
v. 
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, 
MEERUT 
(Civil Appeal No. 4854 of 2009) 
OCTOBER 10, 2014. 
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] 
Consumer Protection Act, 1986: Compensation -
C Purchase of National Saving Certificate (NSC) by a 
proprietorship concern - On maturity, matured amount not 
paid by respondent authorities on the ground that an NSC 
could only be issued in the name of an individual, and that, 
the NSC taken in the name of proprietorship concern was not 
D valid - Held: The irregularity committed while issuing NSC 
in the name of proprietor concern could have been easily 
corrected by authorities by substituting the name of the 
proprietor - Rigidity adopted by authorities was wrong - The 
authorities issued a certificate which they could not have 
E issued and, therefore, they cannot be allowed to enrich 
themselves by retaining the deposit made - Authorities ought 
to have devised means to regularize the irregularity -District 
Forum was right in directing the authorities to pay the maturity 
amount with 12% interest and Rs.5,0001- as compensation, 
F 
and also cost of Rs.2,0001-, to the proprietorship concern which 
was wrongly set aside by State and National Commission. 
Estoppel: Applicability of - Held: Where two people with 
the same source of information assert the same truth or agree 
to assert the same falsehood at the same time, neither ce:: 
G be estopped against the other. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The principle of estoppal is not applicable 
H 
762 
BHAGWATI VANASPATI TRADERS v. SR. SUPERINTENDENT 763 
OF POST OFFICES, MEERUT 
in the facts and circumstances of this case. It was the 
A 
appellant's individual decision to purchase the NSC. It 
was not shown that a fraudulent representation or a false 
statement was negligently made to the appellant. The rule 
of estoppel, in the present case, could have only been 
premised on some conduct of the respondent, which had 
B 
willfully induced the appellant to invest in the NSC. No 
such willful conduct was brought to notice. [Para 7] 
[773-B, C] 
Post Master, Dargamitta HPO, Nel/or v. 
Raja C 
Prameeelamma 
(1998) 
9 
SCC 
706; 
Arulmighu 
Dhandayadhapaniswamy Thirukoil, Palani, Tamil Nadu v. 
Director General of Post Offices, Department of Posts & Ors. 
(2011) 13 sec 220 - referred to. 
2. The NSC was purchased in the name of the D 
appellant which is a sole proprietorship concern and as 
such, the irregularity committed while issuing the NSC in 
the name of the appellant could have easily been 
corrected by substituting the name of the appellant with 
that of the sole proprietor. For, in a sole proprietorship 
E 
concern an individual uses a fictional trade name, in place 
of his own name. The rigidity adopted by the authorities 
is clearly ununderstandable. The postal authorities 
having permitted the appellant to purchase the NSC in the 
year 1995 could not have legitimately raised a challenge 
F 
of irregularity after the maturity thereof in the year 2001, 
specially when the irregularity was curable. [para 9] [755-
D·F] 
Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. (2001) 
2 SCC 41: 2000 (5) Suppl. SCR 228; Ashok Transport G 
Agency v. Awadhesh Kumar & Anr. (1998) 5 SCC 567 - relied 
on. 
Moorgate Mercantile Co. Ltd. v. Twitchings (1977) AC 
890 - referred to. 
H 
764 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
Case Law Reference: 
(1998) 9 sec 10s 
referred to . 
Para 4 
(2011) 13 sec 220 
referred to 
Para 4 
B 
2000 (5) Suppl. SCR 228 relied on 
Para 6 
(1977) AC 890 
referred to 
Para 7 
(1998) 5 sec 567 
relied on 
Para 8 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
C 4854 of 2009. 
D 
From the Judgment and Order dated 04.09.2008 in RP 
No. 1456 of 2008 of the National Consumer Disputes 
Reddressal Commission, New Delhi. 
Prabhash Kr. Yadav (For V.K. Monga) for the Appellant. 
R. Balasubramanian, R.K. Rathore, Rekha Pandey (For 
D.S. Mahra), Kamal Mohan Gupta for the Respondent. 
E 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J. 1. M/s. Bhagwati 
Vanaspati Traders, the appellant before us, is a proprietorship 
concern. Mr. B.K. Garg is its sole proprietor. On 28.4.1995, M/ 
F 
s. Bhagwati Vanaspati Traders purchased one, six years' 
National Savings Certificate (hereinafter referred to as, NSC) 
bearing numbr 
1NS/06DD 381'742, by investing a sum of 
Rs.5,000/-. The above NSC was to mature on 28.4.2001. The 
m
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.