In Brief
The Supreme Court addressed whether the Post Office Department must encash lost or destroyed postal investment certificates. The Court held that while the Department can be held liable for deficiency in service (such as wrongful refusal to encash valid certificates or short payment under the Consumer Protection Act), it is entitled to refuse encashment when the certificate itself is lost and the identity of the original holder cannot be established from departmental records. Postal rules permit replacement only of mutilated or defaced certificates on payment of a small fee; lost or destroyed certificates beyond recognition cannot be replaced.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.