IMPORTANT POINT
Unless identity of initial holder is established, post office is not obliged to replace IVPs not stop payment.

JUDGMENT :

UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1894-1895 OF 2020 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos.16164-16165 of 2019)

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals arise out of the final judgment and order dated 11.09.2018 passed by the National Commission [National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi] in Revision Petition No. 2116 of 2018 and order dated 11.10.2018 in Review Application No.355 of 2018 preferred in the aforesaid revision petition.

3. Complaint, being CDC No.43 of 2015 was filed by the respondent herein before the District Forum [District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bolangir, Odisha] contending inter alia that 88 Indira Vikas Patras ('IVP', for short) of the denomination of Rs. 5000/- each, purchased by the father of the complainant sometime during the period 1996 to 1998, were lost in the month of June 2001. A police complaint was lodged on 25.06.2001 alleging theft of those IVPs and thereafter by intimation dated 14.07.2001 a request was made to the Superintendent of Post Offices, Bolangir to stop payment of any amount upon maturity of the IVPs without proper verification of the holder. It was further submitted that despite demands made by the complainant, the value of the lost IVPs was not being made over by the Post Office to him and as such, there was deficiency in service on part of the Post Office. With the aforesaid allegations, the following principal reliefs were claimed in the complaint:

"(i) The O.P. be directed to pay the maturity value of 88 numbers of IVP of Rs. 5,000/- each denomination = Rs. 8,80,000/- and due interest till final payment is made.

(ii) A sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as claimed as compensation for deficiency in service and loss caused to the complaint and Rs. 10,000/- is claimed towards the cost of litigation"

4. In its reply, the appellant submitted that in terms of Indira Vikas Patra Rules, 1986, ('the Rules', for short), no formal application was necessary to purchase the IVPs and in case the IVPs were purchased by cash, the identity of the purchaser would not be recorded by the Post Office in any document nor any receipt would be issued at the time of issuance of the IVPs, that all the IVPs were bearer instruments like currency notes; that there was no proof or evidence that any consideration was paid by the complainant; and that the complainant could not be termed as a "consumer" within the meaning of the Act [The Consumer Protection Act, 1986]. It was further submitted that the Rules were binding on the Department and since it had acted purely in terms of the Rules, there was no deficiency on its part.

5. The aforesaid complaint was allowed by the District forum vide its order dated 30.03.2016 and it was directed as under:

"We hereby direct the O.P. to release payment of the maturity value of 88 nos. of IVPs bearing No.63C 113623 to 113666 and 3515 to 3558 and 113667 to 113710 and 3559 to 3602 respectively amounting to Rs. 8,80,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakh Eighty thousand) only, to the petitioner after furnishment of an indemnity bond from the petitioner within thirty-five days of this order. Non compliance will attract a penalty of Rs.20 per day till realization."

6. The appellant being aggrieved filed Appeal No.356 of 2016 before the State Commission [State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttak, Odisha], which was dismissed by the State Commission on the ground of non-prosecution. The matter was carried further by filing Revision Petition No.2116 of 2018 before the National Commission.

7. The submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant were recorded as under:

"The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that since inception the Respondent is not a Consumer and no deficiency in service has been committed on the part of the Petitioner and the Complaint of the Respondent is not maintainable. As per Rule 7(2) and 10 of the IVP Rules, 1986, the Respondent is not entitled to any claim and hence his claim has been rejected by the Department."

However, the view taken by