Sau Shaileja vs Pearless Finance Corporation

THIS Revision Petition has arisen out of the Order dated 22.6.95 passed by the Maharashtra State Commission, dismissing the appeal and upholding the order of the District Forum, Buldana dated 30.12.93 allowing the complaint and directing the opposite party to pay Rs. 1,200/ - as pension, Rs. 450/ - as interest, total Rs. 1,650/ - to each of the complainants within one month from the date of receipt of the Order and in default to pay interest at the rate of 15% per annum till realisation of the amount.

WE are noticing the facts in very brief as this Commission is inclined to remand the case. The complainants, Sau Shailaja and Gopalkrushna Satyanarayan Talnikar, wife and husband, obtained pension bonds under Social Welfare Scheme, Table No. III, which is a pension scheme run by Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. having its head -office at Calcutta, the opposite party. The complainants alleged that they had purchased two bonds of Rs. l,000/ - each on 9.7.82 and as per the terms and conditions of the pension bonds, the pension was to start from 9.7.83 for a period of 10 years and thereafter they were entitled to receive the refund of the purchase price. The complainants alleged non -payment of the pensions. The complainants demanded Rs. 2.750/ - being unpaid amount of pension and refund of purchase price of the pension certificates. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party the complainants filed the complaint before the District Forum. The District Forum, Buldana partly allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to pay Rs. 1,200/ - as pension and Rs. 450/ - as interest, total Rs. 1.650/ - to each of the complainants. Being aggrieved of the Order of the District Forum, the complainants filed an appeal and also an application for amendment of the original complaint so as to incorporate, inter alia, the terms and conditions of the contract between the parties, the calculations of the amount value of the pension and the bonds and the payments received. The State Commission by a laconic order disallowed the application for amendment. The complainants have filed this Revision Petition, but have not appeared. We have gone through the records with the help of Mr. D.D. Dayani, Counsel for the respondent. The State Commission, in our view, has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it. Any person aggrieved by an order made by the District Forum is entitled to prefer an appeal against such an order to the State Commission. The State Commission has jurisdiction to hear the appeals against the orders of any District Forum within the State. It is well established that the appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings before a superior Court or Tribunal where all questions of fact and law have to be gone into. The evidence that was tendered by the parties have to be re -apprised afresh. It is also open to the parties to seek an amendment of the complaint. The amendment of the complaint that was sought by the complainants was by way of a clarification as to the terms and conditions of the contract between the parties and as to the accounts of payment made by the opposite party. The application to amend the complaint by clarifying the contract and particulars of the payments received and due is not stating anything new which the opposite party did not know. The District Forum while referring to the terms of the contract printed on the pension certificate, observed that the complainant had not mentioned the terms of the contract in the complaint and there is no specification in the pleading and copy of the conditions has not been filed on record. The case of the complainants is that according to the pension programme for every Rs. 1,000/ - the complainants were to get Rs. 150/ - every year by way of pension for 10 years and after that the principal amount of Rs. 1,000/ - was to be refunded. It was also pleaded in the application for amendment that this was the representation made by the agent of the opposite party as well as those contained in the terms and conditions of the scheme of the opposite party. The District Forum held that the terms and conditions of the scheme are not on record as also there was some dispute relating to the payments made by the opposite party and received by the complainants and on these facts the complainants were making an amendment of the complaint so as to clarify the position. The power of allowing amendment is only procedural and need not have been specifically granted under Section 14(4) of the Act.

FOR the above reasons, we allow the Revision Petition and set aside the impugned order of the State Commission as well as the District Forum. The application for amendment of the original complaint filed by the complainants is allowed. The District Forum shall try the amended complaint de novo after affording the parties an opportunity to substantiate their respective versions. There is no order as to costs so far. Revision Petition allowed.