AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PETITIONER was the opposite party before the District Forum where the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was allowed ex parte as the petitioner remained absent inspite of notice being served upon him. Appeal filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the District Forum was dismissed.
UNDISPUTED facts of the case are that the complainant had obtained National Saving Certificates (NSCs) totalling an amount of Rs. 26,850/- on 14.6.1981 and were to mature on 4.6.1987. Maturity amount was not paid by the petitioner on the ground that the acquisition of NSCs were irregular as under the rules on the subject, NSCs could be held only by individuals and not by any organization like the complainant. Issue of NSCs was irregular, hence under the rules no interest was payable. Aggrieved by this stand of the petitioner, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum. Proceeding ex parte against the petitioner as it remained absent inspite of notice, the District Forum directed the petitioner to pay the maturity amount along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of maturity upto the date of payment. An appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the State Commission, hence this revision petition. The only point argued before by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that under the Rules, the complainant, who is not an individual could not have acquired NSC''s Rules on the subject do not provide for paying any interest. Order of both the lower Forums is bad in law, hence need to be set aside.
We have seen the material on record and heard the arguments. It is not disputed that NSCs indeed were issued in a transparent manner by the petitioner. There is no allegation of furnishing any wrong or incomplete information on the part of complainant while filling the application for obtaining the NSCs. In these circumstances, it does not become of a Government body to back away on the earnings-in this case money drawn from Provident Fund of a poor teacher. There is no dispute that the petitioner did enjoy the money for all this period. There is nothing on record that even remotely, the petitioner after getting the money in 1981, at any stage informed the complainant about the stated irregularity - leaving us with the impression that there is no internal check system. Petitioners wake up to the irregularity after six years and decide not to give money. What audacity ? The complainant cannot be made to pay for the failures of the petitioner We see no merit in the arguments/pleas of the petitioner. State Commission is quite correct in observing that petitioner may proceed against its own errant employee. The order of the State Commission does not call for our interference and is upheld. This Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Revision Petition dismissed.