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