THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICE, BOLANGIR DIVISION, BOLANGIR, ODISHAversusJAMBU KUMAR JAIN

1148                      [2020]REPORTS
                SUPREME COURT    2 S.C.R. 1148              [2020] 2 S.C.R.


 A        THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICE, BOLANGIR
                   DIVISION, BOLANGIR, ODISHA
                                         v.
                             JAMBU KUMAR JAIN
 B                  (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
 C
       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
 D     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
 E
       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
 F     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
 G           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
 H
                                       1148
    THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICE, BOLANGIR DIVISION,              1149
           BOLANGIR, ODISHA v. JAMBU KUMAR JAIN


respect of payments made either through Cheque or Pay Order            A
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
                                                                       B
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.        C
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             D
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]                                                          E
      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       F
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      G
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

                                                                       H
1150                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                             [2020] 2 S.C.R.


 A     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][1155 B-C]
                Central Government of India and Others v. Krishnaji
                Parvetesh Kulkarni (2006) 4 SCC 275 : [2006] 3 SCR
 B              927 – relied on.
                                Case Law Reference
       [2006] 3 SCR 927                         relied on                 Para 14
             CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1894-
       1895 of 2020.
 C
              From the Judgment and Order dated 11.09.2018 in Revision
       Petition No. 2116 of 2018 and 11.10.2018 in Review Application No.
       355 of 2018 in Revision Petition No. 2116 of 2018 passed by National
       Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at New Delhi.
                                              With
 D
                Civil Appeal Nos. 1896-1897 of 2020.
             R. Balasubramanian, Sr. Adv., Ms. Aankansha Kaul, Deepak
       Goeal, Raj Bahadur Yadav and Gurmeet Singh Makker, Advs. for the
       Appellant.
 E            S. B. Upadhyay, Sr. Adv., L. Mohapatra and Parijat Kishore, Advs.
       for the Respondent.
                The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.
 F              CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1894-1895 OF 2020
                (Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 16164-16165 of 2019)
                1. Leave granted.
             2. These appeals arise out of the final judgment and order dated
       11.09.2018 passed by the National Commission1 in Revision Petition
 G     No.2116 of 2018 and order dated 11.10.2018 in Review Application
       No.355 of 2018 preferred in the aforesaid revision petition.
             3. Complaint, being CDC No.43 of 2015 was filed by the
       respondent herein before the District Forum2 contending inter alia that
       88 Indira Vikas Patras (‘IVP’, for short) of the denomination of
       1
 H         National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi
       2
           District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bolangir, Odisha
       THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICE, BOLANGIR DIVISION,                   1151
              BOLANGIR, ODISHA v. JAMBU KUMAR JAIN


Rs. 5000/- each, purchased by the father of the complainant sometime           A
during the period 1996 to 1998, were lost in the month of June 2001. A
police complaint was lodged on 25.06.2001 alleging theft of those IVPs
and thereafter by intimation dated 14.07.2001 a request was made to
the Superintendent of Post Offices, Bolangir to stop payment of any
amount upon maturity of the IVPs without proper verification of the
holder. It was further submitted that despite demands made by the              B
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. With the aforesaid allegations, the following principal
reliefs were claimed in the complaint:
         “(i) The O.P. be directed to pay the maturity value of 88 numbers     C
         of IVP of Rs.5,000/- each denomination = Rs.8,80,000/- and due
         interest till final payment is made,
         (ii) A sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as claimed as compensation for
         deficiency in service and loss caused to the complaint and
         Rs.10,000/- is claimed towards the cost of litigation”                D
      4. In its reply, the appellant submitted that in terms of Indira Vikas
Patra Rules, 1986, (‘the Rules’, for short), no formal application was
necessary to purchase the IVPs and in case the IVPs were purchased
by cash, the identity of the purchaser would not be recorded by the Post
Office in any document nor any receipt would be issued at the time of          E
issuance of the IVPs, that all the IVPs were bearer instruments like
currency notes; that there was no proof or evidence that any consideration
was paid by the complainant; and that the complainant could not be
termed as a “consumer” within the meaning of the Act3. It was further
submitted that the Rules were binding on the Department and since it
had acted purely in terms of the Rules, there was no deficiency on its         F
part.
       5. The aforesaid complaint was allowed by the District forum
vide its order dated 30.03.2016 and it was directed as under:
         “We hereby direct the O.P. to release payment of the maturity         G
         value of 88 nos. of IVPs bearing No.63C 113623 to 113666 and
         3515 to 3558 and 113667 to 113710 and 3559 to 3602 respectively
         amounting to Rs. 8,80,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakh Eighty thousand)
         only, to the petitioner after furnishment of an indemnity bond from
3
    The Consumer Protection Act, 1986                                          H
1152                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2020] 2 S.C.R.


 A              the petitioner within thirty-five days of this order. Non compliance
                will attract a penalty of Rs.20 per day till realization.”
             6. The appellant being aggrieved filed Appeal No.356 of 2016
       before the State Commission4, which was dismissed by the State
       Commission on the ground of non-prosecution. The matter was carried
 B     further by filing Revision Petition No.2116 of 2018 before the National
       Commission.
             7. The submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant were
       recorded as under:
                “The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that since
 C              inception the Respondent is not a Consumer and no deficiency in
                service has been committed on the part of the Petitioner and the
                Complaint of the Respondent is not maintainable. As per Rule
                7(2) and 10 of the IVP Rules, 1986, the Respondent is not entitled
                to any claim and hence his claim has been rejected by the
 D              Department.”
             However, the view taken by the District Forum was accepted by
       the National Commission. It was observed in order dated 11.09.2018:
                “The Respondent’s Father had purchased 88 IVPs for a total
                amount of Rs.8.8 lakhs. The same were lost and a Police
 E              Complaint was filed. The claim of the Respondent on maturity
                was rejected. Several years have elapsed and the amount deposited
                still lies with the Postal Department. So far there appears no other
                claimant for the amount. It certainly cannot be the case of the
                Petitioner to appropriate the entire amount forever, since the lost
 F              documents has not been submitted to them. It is but fair and
                reasonable that after proper verification and taking due precautions
                like idemnity bond etc., the Department after securing its interests,
                should at least pay the maturity value to the Respondent, after
                having not succeeded in the several rounds of litigation. This
                Commission way back in the year 2002, in a matter of similar
 G              nature has elaborately discussed the issues and directed the
                department to release the money, as sufficient time had elapsed
                since the date of maturity. Therefore, it clearly appears that there
                is no error in the order passed by the District Forum.”

       4
 H         State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttak, Odisha
  THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICE, BOLANGIR DIVISION,                      1153
BOLANGIR, ODISHA v. JAMBU KUMAR JAIN [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]


       8. Thereafter, Review Application No.355 of 2018 was preferred        A
by the appellant. However, said Review Application was also dismissed
by the National Commission vide order dated 11.10.2018.
       9. The aforesaid two orders passed by the National Commission
are presently under appeal before us. We have heard Mr. R.
Balasubramanian, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant and               B
Mr. S.B. Upadhyay, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent. It was
submitted by Mr. Upadhyay that in the present matter, the value in respect
of the IVPs in question had not been claimed by any other person and in
any case the respondent was willing to furnish any indemnity bond that
in case any claim were to surface, he would indemnify the Department.
                                                                             C
       10. Before we consider the matter, we must set-out the relevant
Rules. The Rules were issued vide Ministry of Finance (DEA) Notification
No.G.S.R. 1183(E) dated 05.11.1986. Rules 5, 6 and 7 of the Rules, as
amended from time to time, are as under:
      “5 Procedure for purchase of certificates: (1) A certificate           D
      may be purchased at a Post Office on payment of any one of the
      following modes, namely:
      (i) by cash; or
      (ii) by locally executed cheque, pay order or demand draft drawn
      in favour of the Postmaster; or                                        E
      (iii) by presenting a duly signed withdrawal form or cheque with
      the Pass Book for withdrawal from Post Office Savings Account
      standing in the credit of the purchaser at the same Post Office.
      2. No formal application is necessary for purchase of a certificate.
                                                                             F
      6. Issue of Certificate: (1) On payment being made by cash, a
      certificate shall be issued immediately and date of such certificate
      shall be the date of payment.
      (2) Where payment for purchase of a certificate is made by locally
      executed cheque, pay order or demand draft, the certificate shall      G
      not be issued before the proceeds of the cheque, pay order or
      demand draft, as the case may be, are realised and the date of
      such certificate shall be the date of encashment of the cheque,
      pay order or demand draft, as the case may be.

                                                                             H
1154             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2020] 2 S.C.R.


 A            (3) If, for any reason, a certificate cannot be issued immediately,
              a provisional receipt shall be given to the purchaser which may
              later be exchanged for a certificate and the date of such certificate
              shall be as specified in sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (2), as the case
              may be.
 B            (4) A certificate issued under this rule is transferable.
              7. Replacement of certificate: (1) If a certificate is mutilated
              or defaced, the bearer is entitled for replacement form the Post
              Office of issue on payment of fee of rupee one.
              (2) A certificate lost, stolen, mutilated, defaced or destroyed beyond
 C            recognition, will not be replaced by any Post Office.”
              11. In terms of Rule 5 of the Rules, 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
 D     immediately while in 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
 E     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.
              12. 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
 F     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.
 G
              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.
              13. The matter has to be considered purely from the perspective
       of the governing Rules. If in case the IVPs are lost/stolen or mutilated
 H
      THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICE, BOLANGIR DIVISION,                       1155
    BOLANGIR, ODISHA v. JAMBU KUMAR JAIN [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]


or defaced beyond recognition, the Rules are clear that they shall not be         A
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.
                                                                                  B
       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 never be established through the record,
the Department was well within its rights not to accept the prayer for            C
return of the maturity sum.
       14. In Central Government of India and others vs. Krishnaji
Parvetesh Kulkarni5, similar prayer made through a writ petition, was
rejected by this Court with following observations:-
                                                                                  D
         “An IVP is akin to an ordinary currency note. 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. Rule 7(2)
         makes the position clear that a certificate lost, stolen, mutilated,
         defaced or destroyed beyond recognition will not be replaced by
         any post office. Similar is the position as regards the certificate      E
         which is either lost or stolen. Undisputedly there was no challenge
         to the legality of the rule 7(2). In the absence of a challenge to the
         provision, any direction should not really have been given. It is
         fundamental that no direction which is contrary to law can be
         given.”                                                                  F
       15. In our view, the District Forum and the National Commission
completely erred in accepting the claim. We, therefore, allow these
appeals, set-aside the view taken by the National Commission and dismiss
the original complaint. No costs.
         CIVIL APPEAL Nos.1896-1897 OF 2020                                       G
         (Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos.16166-16167 of 2019)
         16. Leave granted.

5
    (2006) 4 SCC 275                                                              H
1156                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2020] 2 S.C.R.


 A           17. These appeals arise out of the final judgment and order dated
       11.09.2018 passed by the National Commission in Revision Petition
       No.2117 of 2018 and order dated 11.10.2018 in Review Application
       No.356 of 2018 preferred in the aforesaid revision petition.
              18. In this case, 160 IVPs of the denomination of Rs.5000/- each,
 B     were stated to have been lost and the claimant in this case and the
       claimant in the earlier matter are members of the same family. Similar
       relief was granted by the District Forum and the National Commission,
       which orders are presently under appeal before us.
             19. It is somewhat strange that only the IVPs were lost in both
 C     the cases by the family and no other instrument was lost. Be that as it
       may, for the reasons recorded in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (Civil)
       Nos.16164-16165 of 2019, these appeals also deserve to be allowed.
              20. We, therefore, allow these appeals, set-aside the view taken
       by the National Commission and dismiss the original complaint. No costs.
 D
       Ankit Gyan                                             Appeals disposed of.




 E




 F




 G




 H