Procedural irregularity in savings certificate issuance cannot defeat maturity payment where the depositor acted in good faith.

Rule 6 of the postal instructions barred issuance of National Savings Certificates in the name of a Hindu undivided family, but compliance responsibility rested with the issuing post office. A depositor who bought the certificate in good faith could not be denied maturity payment because of the issuing authority's error. The rule was treated as an administrative control measure, not a basis to defeat payment due on maturity, and a procedural irregularity in issuance did not by itself extinguish the depositor's entitlement where the depositor was not at fault. The objection based on the HUF name was rejected, and relief to the complainant was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether refusal to pay the maturity amount of the National Savings Certificate was justified on the ground that the certificate had been issued in the name of a Hindu undivided family in breach of the postal rules.

Analysis: Rule 6 of the postal instructions prohibited issuance of National Savings Certificates in the name of a Hindu undivided family, but the duty to ensure compliance lay with the issuing post office. The complainant had purchased the certificate in good faith and could not be penalised for the issuing authority's mistake. The cited rule was meant for administrative control and did not justify denial of the amount due on maturity. The reasoning also aligned with the principle that a procedural irregularity in the opening or issuance of a savings instrument does not, by itself, defeat payment where the depositor was not at fault.

Conclusion: The objection based on issuance in the name of the Hindu undivided family was rejected, and the order granting relief to the complainant was sustained.

---