SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Central Government of India and Others
Vs
Krishnaji Parvetesh Kulkarni
C.A. No. 4819 of 2000 (With C.A. No. 1934 of 2006)
(Arijit Pasayat and R.V. Raveendran, JJ)
05.04.2006
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Leave granted in SLP (C) No.l 1387 of 2003.
2. These two Appeals involve identical questions and are, therefore, taken up
for disposal together.
3. Challenge is to the direction given in the suit as affirmed in the order
passed in the Civil Revision directing payment of maturity value in respect of
Indira Vikas Patras (for short 'IVPs').
4. Undisputed position is that the respondent in each case had purchased IVPs
from post offices. Respondent in each case was entitled to receive maturity
value on presentation of the certificate. In each case respondent lost IVPs. In
Civil Appeal No. 4819 of 2000 the respondent claimed to have lodged a complaint
at the police station about the loss of IVPs. He also informed about the loss
of FVPs to the Postal Superintendent with the request to look into the matter.
The Postal Superintendent informed the respondent that there is no provision
for replacement of any FVP lost, stolen, mutilated, defaced or destroyed.
Therefore, the claim for duplicate FVPs was turned down. The respondent filed
petition before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum taking the stand
that post office was not justified in its action. Since the IVPs are
transferable from one person to another like currency notes without involving
the postal agency duplicated should be issued. The Consumer Forum dismissed the
application. Thereafter the respondent filed a suit before the Civil Court
which decreed the suit in favour of the respondent. Revision petition was filed
before the High Court which was dismissed. The High Court held that since the
loss of the IVPs is bona fide and there is no attempt to defeat the interest of
the postal authorities and as none else had made a claim on the basis of the
said IVPs, the original holder of the IVPs was entitled to payment of the IVPs
on the maturity value.
5. In the other appeal position is somewhat similar except that the respondent
had not approached the Consumer Forum. The respondent filed a suit for
declaration that he was owner of the IVPs which were lost and was entitled to
get payment of the maturity value. The suit was decreed. Civil revision
petition was also dismissed on the ground that if the loss of the IVP is
genuine and bona fide, the Central Government has a commitment to refund the
amount of security.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the approach of the Trial
Court and the High Court is clearly contrary to law. He submitted that High
Court had failed to notice its earlier decision in /. Kemparayappa v. Union of
India, W.P. No. 43361/1995 decided on 18.7.1996, that IVPs are bearer bonds
which are freely transferable and payment will have to be made to the person
producing them and therefore question of issuing duplicates does not arise in
the event of loss.
7. The transactions relating to IVPs are governed by the Indira Vikas Patra
Rules, 1986 (in short the 'Rules'). The Rules have been framed in exercise of
power conferred under the Government Savings Certificates
Act, 1959 (in short 'the Act'). The relevant Rule 7(2) reads as follows:
"7(2): A certificate lost, stolen, mutilated, defaced or destroyed beyond
recognition, will not be replaced by any Post Office."
8. Some of the other provisions which are relevant are Rules 6, 8 and 9. They
read as follows:
"6. Issue of Certificate.- (7) 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 not be issued before
the proceeds of the cheque, pay order or demand draft, as the case may be, are
realized and the date of such certificates shall be date of encashment of the
cheque, pay order or demand draft, as the case may be.
8. Encashment of Certificate.- (7) A certificate of any denomination may be
encashed any time after the expiry of a period of five years from the date of
issue by presenting it before the Post Office of issue.
(2) Where a certificate of any denomination has been purchased on or after the
1st April, 1987, it may be encashed at any time after the expiry of a period of
five and half years from the date of issue by presenting it before the Post
Office of issue.
(2-A) Where a Certificate of any denomination has been purchased on or after
the 1st March, 1988 it may be encashed at any time after the expiry of a period
of five years from the date of issue by presenting it before the Post Office of
issue:
Provided that a certificate may be encashed at any other Post Office if the
office-in-charge of that Post Office is satisfied on verification from the Post
Office of issue that such certificate was issued by the said Post Office.
9. Discharge of Certificate.- The person presenting a certificate for
encashment shall sign in the space provided on the back thereof in token of
having received payment and indicate thereon."
9. According to learned counsel for appellants sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 has clear
application to the facts of the case. Reliance was placed on a decision of the
Delhi High Court where an identical issue was adjudicated in Civil Writ
Petition No. 1848 of 1992. In that case reliance was placed on Rule 57(10) of
the Post Office Savings Bank Manual Volume - II. It was held that lost, stolen,
mutilated, defaced or destroyed IVPs cannot be replaced. It was pointed out
that Rule 7(2) of the Rules was not taken note of, yet the decision is an
authority for the proposition that the lost, stolen, mutilated, defaced or
destroyed IVPs cannot be replaced.
10. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondents in either of the
appeals.
11. 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 FVP 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 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.
12. Therefore, the impugned order in each appeal cannot be sustained. It is,
however, evident from the record in Civil Appeal No.4819 of 2000 the respondent
has been paid the amount pursuant to the direction given in the suit as
affirmed by the High Court. In the peculiar circumstances, the respondent shall
not be liable to refund the amount in the peculiar circumstances of the case.
So far as other appeal is concerned, if the appellants have not made the
payment, they shall not be liable to make payment. But if the payment has
already been made as in the case of Civil Appeal No. 4819 of 2000 then no
recovery shall be made.
13. This direction is being given in view of the statement made by leaned
counsel for the appellants that considering the small amount involved the
appellant will not claim refund, but the position in law has to be set at rest
as large number of such claims are being made.