NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/29/2008

SHARADA NIKETAN HIGH SCHOOL - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE POST MASTER, SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

MR. VENKAT REDDY

17 Apr 2012

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 29 OF 2008
 
(Against the Order dated 13/07/2007 in Appeal No. 1111/2005 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
1. SHARADA NIKETAN HIGH SCHOOL
R/O URUS, WARANGAL,
ANDHRA PRADESH
-
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. THE POST MASTER, SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES & ANR.
HESD POST OFFICE, STATION ROAD,
WARANGAL,
ANDHRA PRADESH
2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES
WARANGAL DIVISION, WARANGAL OFFICE OF POST OFFICE COMPLEX, STATION ROAD,
WARANGAL,
ANDHRA PRADESH
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN, PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. VINEETA RAI, MEMBER

For the Petitioner :
Mr.P.Venkat Reddy, Advocate
For the Respondent :
Ms.Sangita Rai, Advocate for Mr.R.N.Singh,
Advocate

Dated : 17 Apr 2012
ORDER

        Sharada Niketan High School, petitioner herein, purchased NSCs of Rs.50,000/- on 10.7.1996.  Maturity date of the same was 10.7.2002.   Maturity value was maturity Rs.1,00,750/-.  After maturity, petitioner approached the postal authorities to pay the maturity amount of Rs.1,00,750/-.  Respondent paid only the face value of Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner, which it received under protest on 4.1.2003.  Respondent took the ground that NSCs cannot be issued for institutions and, therefore, interest was not payable to the petitioner. 

  

Being aggrieved, petitioner filed complaint before the District Forum, which allowed the same and directed the respondent to pay the amount of Rs.50,000/- to the Complainant towards compensation along with interest @ 6% from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 19.2.2004 till the date of deposit together with costs of Rs.2,000/-.

 

Respondent, being aggrieved, filed the appeal before the State Commission, which partly allowed the same.  State Commission did away with the compensation of Rs.50,000/-.  Rest of the order of the District Forum was maintained. 

 

        Counsel for the petitioner has fairly placed before us a recent judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Arulmighu Dhandayudhapaniswamy Thirukoil, Palani, Tamil Nadu, thr. its Joint Commissioner vs. The Director General of Post Offices, Department of Posts and Ors. – (2011) 13 SCC 220 which squarely concludes the point against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent.

        Since the order passed by the State Commission is in line with the view taken by the Supreme Court, no interference is called for.  Dismissed.

 

 
......................J
ASHOK BHAN
PRESIDENT
......................
VINEETA RAI
MEMBER

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.