IMPORTANT POINT
An Indira Vikas Patra (Postal Savings) is akin to an ordinary currency note and a lost IVP cannot be replaced.

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.—Leave granted in SLP (C) No. 11387 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 IVPs to the Postal Superintendent with the request to took into the matter. The Postal Superintendent informed the respondent that there is no provision for replacement of any IVP lost, stolen, mutilated, defaced or destroyed. Therefore, the claim for duplicate IVPs 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 J. 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:-

(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 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 :—

(1) A certificate of any denomination may be encashed any time after the expiry of a period of five years from the date