Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/115/2017

M/s New India Rubber Works - Complainant(s)

Versus

Senior Superintendent, General Post Office - Opp.Party(s)

Tarun Jhatta

13 Apr 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/115/2017
Date of Institution	:	06/02/2017
Date of Decision	:	13/04/2018

 

 

M/s New India Rubber Works, 3MW, Industrial Area I, Chandigarh through its sole proprietor, Mr. Tejinder Singh resident of House No.53, Sector 11-A, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     Senior Superintendent, General Post Office, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

2.     Senior Post Master, Sector 11-D, Chandigarh.

… Opposite Parties

 

 

CORAM :	SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                  

 

                           

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Abhishik Bhateja, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. G.C. Babbar, Counsel for OPs.

 

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.         The averments are, complainant proprietor firm had purchased National Saving Certificates (NSCs) for Rs.18,000/- on 5.10.1996 from OPs.  After six years from the date of purchase, the amount had to be doubled i.e. Rs.36,000/-.  The NSCs were pledged with the Electricity Department, Chandigarh as a security for getting the load extension. The industry was closed in the year 2004 and the NSCs were got released from the Electricity Department on 3.9.2013. Subsequently, the NSCs were submitted with the OPs for encashment, but, the assured amount was not given on the pretext that NSCs, as per Rules, could not be sold to a firm.  The matter was agitated, but, with no result. Hence, the present consumer complaint praying for refund of Rs.18,000/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses.
2.         OPs have contested the complaint and furnished a joint reply.  It is the case, NSCs could not have been purchased by the complainant firm.  Principle of promissory estoppel is not applicable to the post office. NSCs were inadvertently sold to the complainant firm. Maintained, OPs are still ready and willing to pay the principal amount alongwith saving bank rate of interest from the date of deposit till maturity.  On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.
3.         Rejoinder was filed by the complainant and facts mentioned in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
4.         Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.         We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and gone through the record of the case.  Our conclusions are as under :-
6.         Per pleadings of the parties, it is the admitted case, the complainant had purchased the NSCs for Rs.18,000/- on 5.10.1996 and on maturity this amount had to be doubled i.e. Rs.36,000/- on 5.10.2002. There is no dispute with regard to these averments. The OPs impliedly had admitted deficiency in service as their officials had acted negligently and the NSCs per rules could not have been issued to a firm.  Nevertheless, it is not the case that the complainant had compelled the OPs to issue the NSCs in its name.  In this situation, the complainant cannot be blamed of. Now by setting up a plea that such a contract is not binding upon the OPs, being contrary to rules, the complainant cannot be allowed to suffer for the same.  Even if the contact is said to be voidable, OPs shall have the option to get excess amount recovered from the defaulting officers. 
7.         The learned counsel for the OPs has relied upon case titled as Union of India & Ors. Vs. Mata Mansa Devi Shrine Board, Panchkula, Revision Petition No.75 of 2010 decided on 24.11.2014 vide which the Hon'ble National Commission held that the authorised representative of the respondent admits about receipt of the payment and the respondent is also ready to accept interest @ 6% p.a. as offered by the petitioners.  This precedent leads to nowhere in the present situation.  It may be on different facts and footing. Therefore, it does not hold good to the facts of the present case. The learned counsel for the OPs has further relied upon case titled as Dharam Pal Aggarwal Vs. Sub Postmaster, Post Office & Ors., Revision Petition No.868 of 2008 decided on 24.5.2011 whereby on Kisan Vikas Patras on account of mistake in the rate of interest 6% per annum interest was allowed. However, in the present case, it is not Kisan Vikas Patras or to say clerical error on point of rate of interest, but, NSCs were sold. Therefore, this precedent also does not hold good to the facts of the present case.
8.         In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly partly allowed. The OPs are directed as under:-

1. To immediately give the maturity amount of the NSCs (Annexure C-1 to C-5) i.e. Rs.36,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest, as applicable to savings bank accounts, w.e.f. 3.9.2013 (as claimed in the letter/Annexure C-6), till realization.
2. To pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant as compensation for deficiency in service on their part;
3. To pay to the complainant Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation.

9.         This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
10.         The OPs, if deemed fit, are at liberty to recover the excess amount from defaulting officials.  However, they have to first pay and then recover.
11.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
13/04/2018	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
hg	Member	Member	President