NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/1090/2006

SR. SUPDT. OF POST OFFICES, NAGPUR AND ORS. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SH. KRISHANAMURARY AGARWAL - Opp.Party(s)

JASWINDER SINGH

07 Jul 2008

ORDER

Date of Filing: 02 May 2006

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHI.Revision Petition(RP) No. RP/1090/2006
(Against the Order dated 28/11/2005 in Appeal No. 2243/2005 of the State Commission Maharastra)
1. SR. SUPDT. OF POST OFFICES, NAGPUR AND ORS.NAGPUR - - ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. SH. KRISHANAMURARY AGARWAL12 MEGHDOOT SO CANAL ROAD RAMDAS PETH NAGPUR ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HONORABLE MR. JUSTICE M.B. SHAH ,PRESIDENTHONORABLE MRS. RAJYALAKSHMI RAO ,MEMBERHONORABLE MR. ANUPAM DASGUPTA ,MEMBER
For the Appellant :For JASWINDER SINGH,(Mr. Madhu Sudan, Proxy Counsel)
For the Respondent :

Dated : 07 Jul 2008
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

          Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

          In our view, the impugned order passed by the State Commission directing the petitioner to pay the amount with 6% p.a. interest does not call for any interference, because in para ‘E’ of the grounds in the revision petition, the petitioner has admitted that the complainant’s request to issue duplicate Indira Vikas Patra (hereinafter referred as ‘IVP’) was granted by the Senior Superintendent of Post offices (SSPOs) and, thereafter, the Sub-Postmaster, Kamthi issued the duplicate IVPs. The complainant received the payment by encashing them on 25th September, 2003. From this admission, it is clear that the amount of the IVPs was payable to the complainant but there was a delay of four years in issuing them. For that reason, interest @ 6% p.a. was awarded by the State Commission (as against 9% p.a. ordered by the District Forum).

Hence, this revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

 



......................JM.B. SHAHPRESIDENT
......................RAJYALAKSHMI RAOMEMBER
......................ANUPAM DASGUPTAMEMBER