1998 (2) TMI 460 - Commission - Companies Law

Summary

Issues:
1. Allegation of deficiency in service by the Market Committee regarding the conversion of National Saving Certificates and payment of interest.
2. Dispute over the issuance of NSCs of the Sixth Issue instead of the Seventh Issue.
3. Appeal filed by the Postal Department against the order passed by the District Forum.
4. Interpretation of deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act.
5. Application of the judgment in Postmaster Dargamitta H.P.O. Hellora v. Ms. Raja Prameelamma to the present case.

The judgment by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission involved an appeal by the Director General, Post & Telegraph, New Delhi, against an order passed by the District Forum, Karnal, in response to a complaint by the Market Committee, Gharaunda, alleging deficiency in service related to the conversion of National Saving Certificates (NSCs) and payment of interest. The Market Committee had purchased NSCs of the Sixth Issue instead of the Seventh Issue, leading to a claim for maturity of the Seventh Issue with interest at 18% and damages. The Postal Department admitted the error but argued that the Market Committee should have encashed the certificates upon noticing the mistake. The District Forum ruled in favor of the Market Committee, prompting the appeal by the Postal Department.

The Commission, in an interim order, directed the Postal Department to pay the principal amount to the Market Committee pending the appeal process. The Postal Department relied on the judgment in Postmaster Dargamitta H.P.O. Hellora v. Ms. Raja Prameelamma, emphasizing that an erroneous indication of higher interest rates or maturity value did not constitute deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act. The Commission agreed with this interpretation, stating that the error in selling the Sixth Issue NSCs instead of the Seventh Issue did not amount to deficiency in service as per the law. Citing the binding precedent, the Commission allowed the appeal, setting aside the District Forum's order. Consequently, the Market Committee was not entitled to interest on the maturity amount of the NSCs as per the Seventh Issue. The complaint was disposed of with no costs awarded.

The judgment highlighted the importance of contractual obligations and adherence to the terms specified by the government in the sale of NSCs. It clarified that inadvertent errors in sales transactions, leading to discrepancies in interest rates or maturity values, did not necessarily constitute deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act. The decision underscored the need for parties to fulfill their contractual duties and obligations as defined by law, even in cases of administrative oversight or mistakes.