http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  4819 of 2000

PETITIONER: Central Government of India & Ors

RESPONDENT: Krishnaji Parvetesh Kulkarni

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/04/2006

BENCH: ARIJIT PASAYAT & R.V. RAVEENDRAN

JUDGMENT:

[With C.A. No\0051934 \005\005\005./2006 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C)  No.11387 of 2003)

J U D G M E N T

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.  

       Leave granted in SLP (C) No.11387 of 2003.          These two appeals involve identical questions and are,  therefore, taken up for disposal together.          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’).           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 look 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.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

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.   

       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.  

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."

       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 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

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."

 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.

       There is no appearance on behalf of the respondents in  either of the appeals.   

       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 IVP 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.            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.

       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.         

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

The appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent but  without any order as to costs.