AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS appeal is by the opposite party (for short "O.P.") challenging the order of the District Forum allowing the complaint of the complainant.
THE case of the complainant is as follows: THE complainant invested some money in M/s. Pearl Green Forest Limited (for short, the "Company") for a certain period. On maturity of the deposit, the company had sent a sum of Rs. 2,567 to the complainant by Money Order through the O.P. But the O.P. did not pay the amount to the complainant. This has made the complainant to correspond with the O.P. regarding non-payment of money sent by the company through Money Order. THE O.P. gave a reply stating that the claim is barred by time. This has made the complainant to file the complaint before the District Forum alleging "Deficiency in service".
The case of the O.P. is that the money sent by the company was sent back to the company since the O.P. was not able to trace the addressee.
The District Forum after considering the evidence adduced by both the parties has allowed the complaint stating that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. in not paying the amount to the complainant.
THE learned Counsel appearing for the O.P. submitted that the O.P. had sent the money back to the company since the Postal Authorities were not able to trace the addressee so as to pay the money sent through Money Order. In support of this contention the O.P. had produced certain records before the District Forum. THE District Forum has observed that the entries found in the relevant Register do not show that the money was sent back to the company. If the money was sent back by the O.P. to the company, necessarily the O.P. ought to have obtained a receipt from the company for having paid the amount. In the instant case, no such receipt was produced. According to the O.P., the receipt was destroyed as per the rules prevailing in the Postal Department. If at all the receipt is destroyed, necessarily the other records relating to this transaction also ought to have been destroyed. Further, in the version filed before the District Forum, in the first instance, the O.P. has not taken up the contention that the amount sent by the company was sent back to the company. If at all the money was sent back to the company, then the O.P. could have taken the said plea in the version. In the version the main defence taken by the O.P. was that the claim is barred by time. THEre is no reason for the O.P. to take the defence of Limitation as long as the amount is not paid as per the Money Order to the addressee or it is not sent back to the sender, in the absence of any acknowledgement produced by the O.P. for having paid the said amount to the company. THErefore, in our view, the District Forum is right in ordering the O.P. to pay the amount of Rs. 2,567 with interest. Hence, we pass the following order : The appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.