TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (10) TMI 1031
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an individual, and that, the NSC taken in the name of M/s. Bhagwati Vanaspati Traders, was not valid. He was also informed, that the matter had been referred for advice to the Post Master General, Bareilly, and that, the question of payment of the maturity amount would be considered only after the receipt of inputs from Bareilly. Having waited for a substantial length of time, and realizing that no further action had been taken at the hands of the Respondent, B.K. Garg visited the office of the Post Master General, Bareilly. At Bareilly he was informed, that the matter had been referred to the Director General (Post), Department of Posts, New Delhi, and that, he would have to await the decision of the Director General (Post). Having waited long enough, without any fruitful result, M/s. Bhagwati Vanaspati Traders preferred Complaint Case No. 513 of 2004 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Meerut (hereinafter referred to as, the District Forum). The District Forum, by its order dated 1.2.2007 accepted the claim of M/s. Bhagwati Vanaspati Traders, and accordingly, directed the Respondent to pay the maturity amount of Rs. 10,075/- with 12% interest, from the date of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....id. As such this is not a case of deficiency in service either in terms of the law or in terms of the contract as defined in Section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. (emphasis is ours) During the course of hearing, learned Counsel for the Respondent, in addition to the judgment extracted hereinabove, placed reliance on a recent decision rendered by this Court in Arulmighu Dhandayadhapaniswamy Thirukoil, Palani, Tamil Nadu v. Director General of Post Offices, Department of Posts and Ors. (2011) 13 SCC 220, and drew our attention to the following conclusions recorded therein;- 18. This Court in Raja Prameeelamma case (1998) 9 SCC 706, held that even though the certificates contained the terms of contract between the Government of India and the holders of the National Savings Certificate, the terms in the contract were contrary to the Notification and therefore the terms of contract being unlawful and void were not binding on the Government of India and as such the Government refusing to pay interest at the rate mentioned in the Certificate is not a case of deficiency in service either in terms of law or in terms of contract as defined Under Section 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rned Counsel invited our attention to the following observations: 20. Estoppel by conduct in modern times stands elucidated with the decisions of the English Courts in Pickard v. Sears 1837 6 Ad. & El. 469, and its gradual elaboration until placement of its true principles by the Privy Council in the case of Sarat Chunder Dey v. Gopal Chunder Laha (1891-92) 19 IA 203, whereas earlier Lord Esher in the case of Seton Laing Company v. Lafone 1887 19 Q.B.D. 68, evolved three basic elements of the doctrine of Estoppel to wit: Firstly, where a man makes a fraudulent misrepresentation and another man acts upon it to its true detriment: Secondly, another may be where a man makes a false statement negligently though without fraud and another person acts upon it: And thirdly, there may be circumstances under which, where a misrepresentation is made without fraud and without negligence, there may be an Estoppel. Lord Shand, however, was pleased to add one further element to the effect that there may be statements made, which have induced other party to do that from which otherwise he would have abstained and which cannot properly be characterized as misrepresentatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....here could be no difficulty in ascertaining, and then the legal consequences followed (Lyon v. Reed (1844) 13 M & W 285 (at p. 309). The doctrine has, however, in modern times, been extended so as to embrace practically any act or statement by a party which it would be unconscionable to permit him to deny. The rule has been authoritatively stated as follows: 'Where one by his words or conduct willfully causes another to believe the existence of a certain state of things and induces him to act on that belief so as to alter this own previous position, the former is concluded from averring against the latter a different state of things as existing at the same time.' (Pickard v. Sears (supra)). And whatever a man's real intention may be, he is deemed to act willfully 'if he so conducts himself that a reasonable man would take the representation to be true and believe that it was meant that he should act upon it.' (Freeman v. Cooke 1848(2) Exch. 654: at p. 663). Where the conduct is negligent or consists wholly of omission, there must be a duty to the person misled (Mercantile Bank v. Central Bank 1938 AC 287 at p. 304, and National Westminster Bank v. Barcl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and the reply thereto dated 8.3.1991 which unmistakably record the factum of non-payment of JPC price. (emphasis is ours) Based on the aforesaid observations it was the emphatic contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant, that the rule of estoppel would come to the aid of the Appellant, inasmuch as, the Appellant having been consciously permitted to purchase the NSC, could not be denied the benefit of the maturity amount by asserting, that there was some irregularity in the purchase of the NSC. 7. It is not possible for us to accept the applicability of the principle of estoppel in the facts and circumstances of this case. No representation is ever shown to have been made to the Appellant. It was the Appellant's individual decision to purchase the NSC. It is not shown, that a fraudulent representation was made to the Appellant. It is also not shown, that a false statement was negligently made to the Appellant. The rule of estoppel, in the present case, could have only been premised on some conduct of the Respondent, which had willfully induced the Appellant to invest in the NSC. Unfortunately, for the Appellant, no such willful conduct has been brought ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sion does not have the effect of converting the proprietary business into a partnership firm. The provisions of Rule 4 of Order XXX have no application to such a suit as by virtue of Order XXX Rule 10 the other provisions of Order XXX are applicable to a suit against the proprietor of proprietary business "insofar as the nature of such case permits". This means that only those provisions of Order XXX can be made applicable to proprietary concern which can be so made applicable keeping in view the nature of the case." (emphasis is ours) Based on the observations recorded in the aforesaid judgment, the second contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the Appellant was, that in sum and substance, a sole proprietorship concern allows the fictional use of a trade name on behalf of an individual. It was contended, that truthfully only one individual is the owner of a sole proprietorship concern. As such, according to learned Counsel, the name of the sole proprietorship concern, can again be substituted with the name of the sole proprietor. If that is allowed, the NSC purchased by the Appellant would strictly conform to the mandate of law. According to learned Counsel, it makes....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vise means to regularize the irregularity, if possible. 10. It is not possible for us to deny relief to the Appellant, based on the judgments rendered by this Court in Raja Prameeelamma case (supra) and Arulmighu Dhandayadhapaniswamy Thirukoil case (supra), in view of the fact that, the matter was never examined in the perspective determined by us hereinabove. In neither of the two judgments, the amendment of the NSC was sought. The instant proposition of law, was also not projected on behalf of the certificate holders, in the manner expressed above. 11. There was seriously no difficulty at all in the facts and circumstances of the present case, to regularize the defect pointed out, because M/s. Bhagwati Vanaspati Traders, is admittedly the sole proprietorship concern of B.K. Garg. The postal authorities should have solicited the change of the name in the NSC, through a representation by B.K. Garg himself. On receipt of such a representation, the alleged irregularity would have been cured, and the beneficiary of the deposit, would have legitimately reaped the fruits thereof. Rather than adopting the above simple course, the postal authorities chose to strictly and rigidly int....