CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL, DELHI CIRCLE Vs. AJAY GUPTA
LAWS(DELCDRC)-2006-2-15
DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on February 15,2006

CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL, DELHI CIRCLE Appellant
VERSUS
AJAY GUPTA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

J.D.KAPOOR,J - (1.) RESPONDENT purchased NSCs bearing No. 193263, 923935 on 29.3.1993 and 26.3.1994 respectively. These were in the individual name of Mr. Ajay Gupta. Two more NSCs bearing No. 177469 and 048274 for Rs. 10,000 in favour of HUF were purchased on 24.3.1995 and 26.3.1996 respectively. On account of negligence and ignorance of rules relating to NSCs in favour of HUF and in retaining the maturity amount after the date of maturity the appellant vide impugned order dated 17.5.2005 passed by the District Forum, has been directed to pay 7% interest on four instruments and token damages of Rs. 2,000 and Rs. 500 as cost of litigation. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal.
(2.) FROM the record we find that the maturity amount of NSCs which were issued in the individual name of Sh. Ajay Gupta were paid on 13.4.1999 and 28.3.2000. There was hardly any delay of 10 to 15 days in payment of these amounts. The District Forum has rightly held that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant in this regard. After having held so, it is not understandable as to what persuaded the District Forum to award interest @ 7% on these instruments. Thus the order with regard to interest in respect of these instruments is liable to be set aside.
(3.) AS regards the late payment of instruments issued in favour of HUF, the explanation of the appellant before the District Forum was that as per provision of the Saving Certificate Act and the rule framed thereunder these NSCs could only be issued to individuals and Trusts and only with effect from 12.8.2001, these could have been issued to HUF when notification was issued for issuing the NSCs in favour of HUF. This explanation does not find favour with us as the appellant once having accepted the amount in favour of a particular entity was not authorised to retain it after the date of maturity and were liable to pay the maturity amount as the appellant could not have taken advantage of acts of its own omission and commission. Act of issuing the NSCs in the name of HUF itself amounts to deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the appellant and in terms of Section 14 of Consumer Protection Act the appellant is liable to compensate the consumer as to the loss or injury suffered by him due to its negligence.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.