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.
Therefore, the claim for duplicate IVPs was turned down.
In each case respondent lost IVPs.
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 numberattempt to defeat the interest of the postal authorities and as numbere 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.
The Consumer Forum dismissed the application.
In the other appeal position is somewhat similar except that the respondent had number approached the Consumer Forum.
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.
Since the IVPs are transferable from one person to another like currency numberes without involving the postal agency duplicated should be issued.
He also informed about the loss of IVPs to the Postal Superintendent with the request to look into the matter.
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 .
The Postal Superintendent informed the respondent that there is numberprovision for replacement of any IVP lost, stolen, mutilated, defaced or destroyed.
In Civil Appeal No.4819 of 2000 the respondent claimed to have lodged a companyplaint at the police station about the loss of IVPs.
The respondent filed petition before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum taking the stand that post office was number justified in its action.
The suit was decreed.
These two appeals involve identical questions and are, therefore, taken up for disposal together.
With C.A. No1934 ./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.
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 companymitment to refund the amount of security.
