Postal authorities, which were the opposite parties No.3 to 7 before the District Forum have filed the present revision petition. Complainant – respondent no.1 – herein purchased 1300 units of Rs.10/- each at the cost of Rs.13,000/- of Dhan Varsha Scheme floated by LIC Mutual Fund, respondent no.2 herein. Certificate -2- number of the same is 54880384. On 27.03.1997, respondent no.1 sent the papers for repurchase to respondent no.2 with original Certificate with the request that the Warrant of Payment be sent to him at his residential address. When the complainant did not receive the said Warrant of Payment, he enquired from the respondent no.2 and he was informed that the Warrant of Payment sent to him had been encashed at GPO Amritsar. According to the LIC Mutual Funds, the Warrant of Payment was endorsed as A/c Payee-non transferable and it was due to negligence of postal authorities that the payment was not received by the complainant. Aggrieved by this, complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum. District Forum vide its order dated 22.6.2002 allowed the complaint and gave the following directions: “Therefore, it is ordered that opposite party No.1 & 2 should make payment of Rs.23868/- together with interest @ 9% till the date of payment. Opposite party No.3 and 4, who are officials of the postal department on their behalf the department should make payment of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) as compensation and Rs.500/- as costs of litigation. The complainant has -3- not leveled any allegation against opposite party no.7. Therefore he is absolved of any liability. Opposite party no.1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 i.e. opposite party no.1 and 2 and postal department should ensure the compliance of this order within 30 days of the receipt of copy of this order.” LIC Mutual Funds and opposite party no.2 preferred the appeal before the State Commission which has modified the order of the District Forum by absolving the LIC Mutual Fund of any liability and directing the postal authorities to pay Rs.23,868/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. and costs of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant. The complaint was filed in the year 2000. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the order passed by the State Commission is clearly illegal as the State Commission, after holding that the complaint was barred by limitation, could not grant the relief to the respondent and the appeal filed by the petitioner should have been accepted and the complaint ordered to be dismissed. We find substance in this submission. The State Commission in para 10 of its order has categorically held that the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent was beyond the period -4- of limitation. Para 10 of the order of State Commission reads as under: 10. As regards the case of appellants, there is little doubt that complaint was barred by limitation as filed after more than 2 years when the cause of action finally arose on 4.10.97 & as repeatedly held that it was the duty of the Court before issuing notice to see that complaint was barred by limitation or not which was not followed. There is no rule or practice of writing full address of the payee on the payment warrant. There is no doubt that warrant was mad Account Payee & due to this reason account of Amritsar was either opened foe encashing the warrant or there was any account from before. The Post Office has not come with clean hands as to at what stage it was lost & what steps it took when the matter was brought to their knowledge. This was ample proof that due to willful default of Postal Staff the payment warrant was probably stolen by some one & without connivance of Post all staff it was not possible. Hence exemption under Section 6 of the P.O. Act is not available to Postal Authorities. -5- The State Commission after having recorded the finding that the complaint filed was beyond the period of limitation was duty bound to accept the appeal and dismiss the complaint. For the reasons stated above, the orders passed by the fora below cannot be sustained. Revision petition is allowed and the orders passed by the fora below are set aside. Complaint is ordered to be dismissed as barred by limitation. The amount deposited by the petitioner under the orders of this Commission is ordered to be released. | 
