LexTHE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICE, BOLANGIR DIVISION, BOLANGIR, ODISHA versus JAMBU KUMAR JAIN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 1148 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 2 S.C.R. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICE, BOLANGIR DIVISION, BOLANGIR, ODISHA v. JAMBU KUMAR JAIN (Civil Appeal Nos. 1894-1895 of 2020 Etc.) MARCH 02, 2020 [UDAY UMESH LALIT AND VINEET SARAN, JJ.] Consumer Protection – Deficiency in service on part of the Post Office – Claim of – The father of the respondent – complainant purchased 88 Indira Vikas Patras of the denomination of Rs. 5000/- each – The IVPs were lost – A police complaint was lodged alleging theft of these IVPs – It was contended that despite demands made by the complainant, the value of the lost IVPs was not being made over by the Post Office to him and as such, there was deficiency in service on part of the Post Office – The District forum directed the Post Office to release payment of the maturity value of 88 IVPs – The view taken by the District Forum was accepted by the National Commission – On appeal, held: It is not in dispute that IVPs in the instant case were purchased through cash – At no stage, the identity of purchaser was thus disclosed or registered with the Department – The matter has to be considered purely from the perspective of the governing Rules – If in case the IVPs are lost/ stolen or mutilated or defaced beyond recognition, the Rules are clear that they shall not be replaced by the Post Office – In the face of such statutory provision, the refusal on the part of the Department to entertain any request for maturity sum was absolutely right and justified – It can never be said that there was deficiency on the part of the Department in rendering any service expected of them – Indira Vikas Patra Rules, 1986 – r. 5. Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. In terms of Rule 5 of the Indira Vikas Patra Rules, 1986 IVPs could be purchased at any Post Office after payment in cash or by a Cheque/Pay Order or Demand Draft and no formal application was necessary for such purchase. As against payment made in Cash, the IVPs would be delivered immediately while in 1148 [2020] 2 S.C.R. 1148 A B C D E F G H 1149 respect of payments made either through Cheque or Pay Order or Demand Draft, the same would be issued only after the encashment of any of those instruments. In terms of Rule 6(4), IVPs were transferable. According to Rule 7(1), if the Certificate was mutilated or defaced, the bearer would be entitled to have it replaced on payment of fee of rupee one but if the certificate was lost or stolen or mutilated or defaced or destroyed beyond recognition, in terms of Rule 7(2) it would not be replaced by any Post Office. [Para 11][1154 C-E] 2. It is not in dispute that the IVPs in the present matter were purchased through cash. At no stage, the identity of the purchaser was thus disclosed or registered with the Department. In a situation, where the IVPs were purchased either through Cheque of Pay Order or Demand Draft, there would still be a possibility, through link evidence, to establish the identity of the purchaser but in case of a purchase through the modality of cash, there would be nothing on record which could establish the identity of the purchaser. It may be that there are no claims in respect of the IVPs in question but that does not mean that any person can claim maturity sum in respect of such IVPs and offer an indemnity. [Para 12][1154 E-G] 3. The matter has to be considered purely from the perspective of the governing Rules. If in case the IVPs are lost/ stolen or mutilated or defaced beyond recognition, the Rules are clear that they shall not be replaced by the Post Office. In the face of such statutory provision, the refusal on the part of the Department to entertain any request for maturity sum was absolutely right and justified. It can never be said that there was deficiency on the part of the Department in rendering any service expected of them. [Para 13][1154-H; 1155 A-B] 4. If the Department had refused to encash the Certificates upon presentation or even after encashment had refused to make the payment or had made short payment, there could still be a grievance about deficiency in service but if the Certificates themselves are lost and the identity of the initial holder could THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICE, BOLANGIR DIVISION, BOLANGIR, ODISHA v. JAMBU KUMAR JAIN A B C D E F G H 1150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 2 S.C.R. never be established through the record, the Department was well within its rights not to accept the prayer for return of the maturity sum. [Para 13]
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.