ORDER
S.N. Kapoor, J. (Presiding Member)
1. This revision is directed against the order of the State Commission directing the appellant to pay to the respondent the maturity amount of the National Saving Certificates amounting to Rs. 12,92,242.50 within 60 days along with interest on the prevalent rate of interest on savings.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that NSCs could be purchased only by an individual under Rule 4 of NSC 6th Issue Rule, 1989. It was not a valid contract for the NSCs in question were purchased by the Town Area Committee, Bewar Dist. Mainpuri, UP. It is contended that Rule 11 of the issue provides that if a certificate has been issued in contravention of these Rules, the same shall be encashed by the holder as soon as the fact of the holding being in contravention of these rules is discovered and no interest shall be paid on any holding in contravention of these rules. These NSC(s) were presented after the completion of the prescribed period for encashment at the office of registration. The respondent/complainant were informed by the letter dated 25.6.1992 and 23.6.1992 that no interest was payable on the principal amount. However, no action was taken by the respondent/complainant.
3. Having heard the learned Counsel and having gone through the record, we led that the short point, which requires our consideration is, “Whether the respondent complainant is entitled to claim interest under the NSC Rules on maturity amount? If so, its effect?
4. In this regard, we would like to reproduce Rule 4 of the Saving Bank Rule:
Types of Certificates and Issues thereof-(1) The certificates-shall be of the following types, namely-
(a) Single Holder Type Certificates;
(b) Joint ‘A’ Type Certificates; and
(c) Joint ‘B Type Certificates.
5. There is some substance in the submission that the NSCs of Type A, B and C could be issued respectively-
2(a) Single Holder Type Certificates may be issued to an adult for himself or on behalf of a minor or to a minor.
(b) Joint ‘A’ Type Certificates may be issued jointly to two adults payable to either of the holders jointly or to the survivor.
(c) Joint B’ Type Certificates may be issued jointly to two adults payable to either of the holders or the survivor.
6. As such seeing above said rules, the national saving certificates could not be issued to individuals as has been specified in this scheme to a Company or a Town Area Committee or a person like Town Area Company, Bewar. Nor the complainant could claim interest under the rules.
7. As regards its effect, though the transaction was invalid but amount was retained by Post Office. Rules were supposed to be known to the officials of the issuing Post Office. Whether they persuaded in campaign to raise the savings or not, if they accepted the amount and NSC(s) in contravention of these rules and they did not inform the complainant and did not refuse to issue the NSC(s), they were deficient in rendering service. Consequently, the petitioner is liable to compensate for the loss suffered by the complainant occasioned on account of deficiency in service. In such circumstances, the provisions of Section 72 and second part of Section 73 of the Contract Act are attracted on this kind of invalid transaction by issuance of NSC(s) to ineligible persons. The amount was not deposited gratuitously. In terms of the Section 72 of the Contract Act, a person to whom the money has been paid or anything delivered by mistake or by coercion must repay or return it. As such, the petitioner is liable to pay the principal amount.
8. As regards the question of compensation for loss suffered due to deficiency in service, it would be worthwhile to quote second part of Section 73 which provides for the consequence in such like matters.
Compensation for failure to discharge obligation resembling those created by contract-When an obligation resembling those created by contract has been incurred and has not been discharged, any person injured by the failure to discharge it is entitled to receive the same compensation from the party in default, as if such person had contracted to discharge it and had broken his contract.
Explanation-In estimating the loss or damage arising from a breach of contract, the means which existed of remedying the inconvenience caused by the non-performance of the contract must be taken into account.
9. If it were not a contract at least retaining amount of maturity till NSCs would create an obligation resembling those created by a contract. In such circumstances, the petitioners would be liable to pay “the same compensation”, “as if such person had contracted to discharge it and had broken his contract” on the principal amount payable under Section 72 of the Contract Act and in view of the explanation to second part of Section 73 of the Contract Act. Since in “estimating the loss or damage arising from a breach of contract, the means which existed for remedying the inconvenience caused by non-performance of the contract must be taken into account” in order to compensate the respondent complainant there is no option but to award a sum equivalent to the interest payable on maturity of these NSC(s).
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is evident that the order passed by the State Commission is substantially just and equitable in the given situation and the respondent would be entitled to the maturity amount of NSCs and would be entitled to a sum equivalent to the interest at the same rate of interest as is applicable on the maturity amount of NSCs from the date of maturity till the date of payment.
11. For the aforesaid reasons, we uphold and confirm the order passed by the learned State Commission, UP. The revision petition dismissed accordingly.