9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (4) TMI 536X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (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 Dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1/1995 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 f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
