Consumer Protection Council, Rourkela     ... Appellant
Vs.
Asst. Post Master, Bhubaneswar & Ors.     ... Respondents

[The interest rates for the six year deposits in the National Savings Certificate (NSC VI issue) were revised downward since 1-4-87 and accordingly the depositor was to receive Rs.114 less than the maturity amount mentioned on the Certificate, per thousand, at the time of maturity. The Government had made public this change through Gazette Notifications. But at the same time through the said notifications directed that the NSC VI issue Certificates with revised interest rates should bear a statement written or affixed by rubber stamp that "Maturity value revised. See notification GSR No.364(E), dated 1-4-87". Sri G.C.Nanda, who was not aware of the changed interest rates purchased Certificates between March '88 to July '88 worth Rs.20,000. None of the Certificates bore the statement on maturity value as required by the notifications. At the time of maturity he received lesser money than what was printed on the Certificates. The matter was referred to the Council and the Council went up to the Hon'ble National Commission. Sadly all the three quasi judicial bodies decided that it was a clerical error on the part of the issuing official and that there was no deficiency in service. Excerpts from the judgments of the quasi judicial bodies are given below. - Editor]

District Forum, Sundergarh-II, Rourkela

"In view of the aforesaid assertions of the parties, the questions for determination are

i - whether this Forum has got jurisdiction to adjudicate this dispute,

ii - whether the beneficiary was deceived by non-impression of the revised rate of interest on the 

certificates and for that is he entitled to any relief?

5- Point No.1- The contention that this Forum has no jurisdiction, has to be rejected because part of the cause of action, viz., the final payment under the certificates was effected at Rourkela, which is within the jurisdiction of this Forum."

............................................................................................................................................................

"7- The fact that the maturity value of the National Savings Certificate of VI issue purchased after 1.4.87 has been reduced, has been notified in the official gazette by the Government of India... In thee eye of the law such Notification is to be regarded as the Notice to the general public and particularly to the purchasers of certificates of the VI issue, that after 1.4.87 the maturity value will be according to the ratio prescribed in the Notification. Therefore, the contention that the beneficiary had no knowledge of this Notification does not ensure any benefit to him. 

8- Certificates had not been corrected to show that the maturity value has been reduced. According to Notification, the certificate ought to have been corrected by manuscript or by means of rubber stamp to show that the maturity value has been revised as per Notification No. 364(E), dated 1.4.87. We are of the opinion that omission to inscribe on the certificate as aforesaid is a clerical mistake. Since there is no evidence that with malafide intention this omission has been done, we think the O.P.s cannot be saddled with compensation.

9- Submission of Sri Vaidyanathan that in between April '87 and March '89, due to lower rate of interest the deposits considerably decreased for which Government was forced to enhance maturity value of such issue after 1.4.1989, may be a correct analysis, but it is not for this Forum to utilise this submission to come to conclusion that Government ought to have given similar benefits to depositors prior to 1.4.87. We also do not think it proper to accept the contention that had the beneficiary been appraised of the fact that the maturity value of that issue has been reduced, he would not have gone for this certificate and therefore he should be compensated to the extent of his loss, because, in the eye of law gazette notification will be sufficient to impart knowledge of the same with every purchaser of the certificate of that issue.

10- Thus after analysing the case in all its ramifications we come to the conclusion that it has no merit and therefore is dismissed. No cost."

State Commission, Cuttack

"...................................

5. The points taken before the District Forum by the present appellant have been reiterated in this appeal. It has been alleged that since necessary corrections were not made in the printed certificates and it mentioned the maturity value more than double the deposited amount, the postal authorities are estopped to give less money than that was given in the certificate. It has also been urged that it was unfair on the part of the postal authorities to give the certificate showing the maturity value more than what was payable, which influenced the purchaser of the certificate to invest his money thereunder.

6. It is not disputed that the printed certificates for Rs.5,000 and Rs.10,000 which were given to Mr. Nanda show that more than double the deposited amount shall be payable to him after the date of maturity. But the fact remains that the National Savings Certificate VI issue Rule, 1981 had been amended which took effect from 1.4.87 and the said amendment has been published in the official gazette. Publication in the official gazette is for information of the general public. Therefore, the law presumes that as soon as the notification is published in the official gazette, every citizen of the State gathers knowledge thereof. Thus, it must be deemed that the complainant had the knowledge of the revised rate of interest which became effective from 1.4.87. With the knowledge of the above, he purchased the certificates. He cannot take advantage of the maturity value appearing on the certificates. It is no doubt true that it would have been proper and appropriate for the postal authorities to correct the maturity value printed on the certificate before its issuance. But the aforesaid lapse on the part of the postal authorities will not entitle the complainant to get more interest than what was due to him."

From Council's Revision Petition 

"....2.3 That the suppression of fact that the maturity value had been reduced, by the respondent cannot be treated as a mere clerical error as viewed by the Hon'ble District Forum and endorsed by the Hon'ble State Commission, as suppression such a vital information had resulted in inducing the aggrieved individual Sri Nanda to deposit in the scheme with the belief that he would be getting much higher return, as stated in the certificates............

2.5 That the action of not mentioning the statutory information as required by the Gazette Notification cannot be said to have been done by chance or by accident as the Respondent No.1 had done this on 28.3.1988 as well as on 30.7.1988 when the aggrieved individual had purchased the Certificates worth Rs.5,000 and Rs.15,000, respectively....

2.7 That the Hon'ble National Commission, in First Appeal Nos. 219 and 272 of 1992 had held that the Postal authorities were responsible for deficient service, based on circumstantial evidences and ordered them to pay compensation to the appellant. Similarly in the instant case all circumstantial evidences point out that Respondent No.1 had with malafide intentions suppressed certain facts, over a period of time, in spite of the directions contained in the Gazette Notification..........

2.8.2 That if every citizen is supposed to know, the Postal Officials, who are directly affected by the Gazette Notifications should have definitely had the knowledge that they will have to superscribe the information `Maturity value revised....', as per Notification. That being so it is evident the concerned official had violated Government directives willfully and with malafide intentions. Violation of Gazette Notifications by responsible officials should not have been overlooked by the Hon'ble State Commission."

National Commission

"We do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the State Commission. Hence, this Revision Petition is dismissed."