Superintendent Of Post Offices Nainital vs Aggarwal Hardware Store

MR. Justice Ashok Bhan, President-Superintendent of Post Offices, Nainital, which was the opposite party before the District Forum, has filed the present Revision Petition.

FACTS of the case are that the complainants/Respondent Nos.1 and 2 sent a draft of Rs. 20,000 to M/s. Lyalpur Sanitary Store, 2837, Peepal Mahadev, Hauzkazi, Delhi through the petitioner. The said draft was purchased from State Bank of India-Respondent No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as ''the SBI''). When the draft was not received by the recipient even after a long delay, complainants apprised the petitioner of this fact on 30.4.2002, upon which the petitioner asked the complainants to send the complete name and address of the recipient. Said information was given to the petitioner on 14.5.2002. Complainant asked the SBI to stop payment of the said draft on 1.5.2002. The bank informed the complainant that the said draft had already been encashed on 14.4.2002. Complainant sent a Legal Notice to the petitioner on 5.8.2002 to which the petitioner replied that the Manager, RLO-SR, Post Office, New Delhi has informed that the said registered letter was received in their office on 14.5.2002 and was addressed to Chaupran Engineering, 42 Sharda Nand Marg, New Delhi and the same was destroyed by the Department due to wrong address.

COMPLAINANT filed a complaint with the allegation that the said draft was got honoured by the post-office officials with mala fide intention and prayed that the direction be given to the opposite parties to pay the draft amount of Rs. 20,000 with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from 10.4.2002 till the date of payment. Compensation of Rs. 50,000 towards mental agony and Rs. 8,350 towards other expenses were also prayed for.

DISTRICT Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay the sum of Rs. 20,000 to the complainants along with interest at the rate of 12% from 10.2.2002 till the date of actual payment along with Rs. 20,000 by way of compensation towards mental agony and Rs. 1,500 as costs.

PETITIONER, being aggrieved, filed an appeal before the State Commission. At the time of arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioner made two-fold submissions which have been noticed by the State Commission in the following words: "Learned Counsel for the appellant questioned the propriety of awarding Rs. 20,000 as compensation for harassment and agony with very reasonable interest of 12% p.a. had been awarded on the principal amount of bank draft which was lost in postal transit and also urged that the interest could not have been granted w.e.f. 10.2.2002 when the bank draft was got prepared and dispatched on 10.4.2002."

Both these submissions were accepted and the appeal was partly allowed in the following terms: "Appeal is partly allowed. Order dated 25.7.2005 of the District Forum is modified to the extent that the complainant shall be entitled to Rs. 20,000 together with interest @ 12% p.a. w.e.f. 14.4.2002 till payment and sum of Rs. 1,500 towards litigation expenses. Costs of the appeal are made easy."

NOT being satisfied with the order passed by the State Commission, the present Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner.

A perusal of the order of the State Commission would show that the Counsel for the petitioner had raised two-fold arguments, which were accepted and the appeal was partly allowed. Counsel for the petitioner now seeks to contend that the Fora below have erred in directing the petitioner to pay the draft amount of Rs. 20,000 as well. This point had not been canvassed before the State Commission. The same is being raised for the first time before us. Since this point had not been raised by the petitioner before the State Commission, petitioner cannot be permitted to raise the same now. It is not the case of the petitioner that this point had been raised by the Counsel for the petitioner before the State Commission but the State Commission had failed to notice the same. Since this point was not canvassed before the State Commission, petitioner cannot be permitted to raise the same before us.

IN view of the reasons stated above, the Revision Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.