Indira Vikas Patra purchased in cash and lost then Post office rightly refused to encash Certificates as identity of initial holder could not be established from record – SC
ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 3281 (2020) (03) SC
Important case law relied upon by the parties:
Central Government of India and others vs. Krishnaji Parvetesh Kulkarni (2006) 4 SCC 275
In the instant case, the appeals were filed by the Superintendent of Post Office against the judgment and order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
A complaint was filed by the respondent before the District Forum contending inter alia that few Indira Vikas Patras (‘IVP’) purchased by the father of the complainant 20 years ago were lost.
A police complaint was also lodged in this regard alleging theft of those IVPs and thereafter by intimation a request was made to the Superintendent of Post Offices 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 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.
In its reply,the appellant submitted that in terms of Indira Vikas Patra Rules, 1986, (‘the Rules’), 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 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 Act.
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 part.
However, the District forum allowed the aforesaid complaint and Post Office was directed to release the payment of the maturity value of IVPs to the petitioner on furnishing of an indemnity bond from the petitioner.
The appellant filed an Appeal before the State Commission, which was dismissed on the ground of non-prosecution. The matter was carried further by filing Revision Petition before the National Commission. However, the view taken by the District Forum was accepted by the National Commission.
Encashment of Indira Vikas Patra purchased in cash and lost
The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that in terms of Rule 5, 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 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 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.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court noted that it was 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 otherwise than cash, there would still be a possibility, through link evidence, to establish identity of the purchaser but in case of a purchase through cash, there would benothing on record which could establish the identity of the purchaser.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that it might be that there were no claims in respect of the IVPs in question but that did not mean that any person could claim maturity sum in respect of such IVPs and offer an indemnity. The matter has to be considered purely from the perspective of the governing Rules.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that 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 could never be said that there was deficiency on the part of the Department in rendering any service expected of them.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that 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 return of the maturity sum.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court pointed out that a similar prayer made through a writ petition, had been rejected by it with observation the that 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.
Download Full Judgment Click Here >>
- Cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1981 taken as per valuer report by reverse indexing of FMV
- AO was directed to serve notice of hearing through physical mode upon assessee
- ICAI Intermediate & Foundation Examinations to be held thrice in a year from May/June 2024
- Further extension of due date for filing of Form No. 10A/10AB to 30.06.2024 – CBDT Circular
- Revisionary order purportedly passed earlier but dispatched after written Submissions quashed
