AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ALL these revision petitions arise out of single order of State Commission hence decided by a common order.
THESE revision petitions have been filed by petitioners against order dated 25.9.2012 passed by State Commission in Appeal No. 960 of 2012 - Sub Post Master, Ramkola, District Padrauna & Ors. Vs. Ganga Sugar Corporation Limited; Appeal No. 961 of 2012 - Sub Post Master, Ramkola Distrit Padrauna & Ors. Vs. Ganga Sugar Corporation Limited and in Appeal No. 962 of 2012 - Sub Post Master, Ramkola, District Padrauna & Ors.; by which appeals were partly allowed and order of District Forum was partly modified.
BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/ respondent filed three complaints before District Forum. In Complaint No. 224 of 2003, it was alleged that Rs. 1,30,000/ - were deposited with opposite party/petitioner No. 1 on 30.12.1983 with maturity date 30.12.1988 and interest was payable at 11.5% p.a. i.e. Rs. 15,379.80 per year. In Complaint No. 225 of 2003, it was alleged that Rs. 2,50,000/ - were deposited with opposite party/petitioner No. 1 on 30.3.1984 with maturity date 30.3.1989 and interest was payable at 11.5% p.a. i.e Rs. 29,576.55 per year. In Complaint No. 226 of 2003, it was alleged that Rs. 2,50,000/ - were deposited with opposite party/ petitioner No. 1 on 31.10.1984 with maturity date 31.10.1989 and interest was payable at 11.5% p.a. i.e. Rs. 29576.55 per year. It was, further, alleged that opposite party paid interest for first four years but in the 5th year, neither amount of interest was paid for the 5th year nor principal amount of FDR was returned and ultimately principal amount of all the FDRs was returned on 7.9.2000. Alleging deficiency on the part of opposite parties, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. Opposite party resisted complaint and submitted that District Forum had no jurisdiction and claims were time barred. In para 11 and 12, it was submitted that opposite parties were ready to make payment to the claimant but they did not receive interest. It was, further, submitted that complainants are entitled to receive the interest as per Post Office Savings Bank Rules and not @ 3%. It was, further, submitted that opposite parties are ready to make payment of the amount of FDR if claim is made in proper form. It was, further, submitted that opposite party No. 4 was impleaded as a party unnecessary to create jurisdiction at Gorakhpur and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaints and directed opposite parties to pay amount of interest as claimed with simple interest from the date of maturity till date of actual payment and further allowed Rs. 2,000/ - for mental agony and Rs. 2,000/ - as litigation expenses in each complaint. Both the parties filed appeals before State Commission and Learned State Commission dismissed appeals of complainant but partly allowed appeals of opposite party and directed that interest @ 11.5% will be payable on all FDRs from the date of maturity till 1.4.1995 and afterwards interest at Savings Bank rate will be payable till actual payment against which these revision petitions have been filed. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record. Learned Counsel for Petitioner submitted that in spite of the fact that complaints were time barred and District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaints, Learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaints and Learned State Commission further committed error in allowing appeal only partly, hence, revision petitions be allowed and impugned order be set aside and complaints be dismissed. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for respondent submitted that order passed by Learned State Commission is in accordance with law, hence, revision petitions be dismissed.
IT is admitted case of the parties that FDRs made by complainant with opposite party No. 1 were to mature on 30.12.1988, 30.3.1989 and 31.10.1989 and interest was paid for four years and interest for the 5th year was not paid. Learned Counsel for the parties also apprised that principal amount was returned on 7.9.2000.
NOW the core question to be decided in these revision petitions is whether the District Forum had jurisdiction to entertain the complaints and whether complaints were within limitation.
ADMITTEDLY , complainant deposited amount with opposite party No. 1 - Up Dakpal, Ramkola, District Deoria, but, later on, Ramkola came under District Padrauna, for which District Forum is in Khushinagar. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that complaints have been filed in District Forum, Gorakhpur by impleading opposite party No. 4 as party without any justification and District Forum Gorakhpur had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for respondent submitted that as payment of interest was withheld as per direction of Post Master General, Gorakhpur, he was impleaded as a party and District Forum, Gorakhpur had jurisdiction to entertain the complaints.
LEARNED Counsel for respondent has not shown me any direction issued by Post Master General, Gorakhpur for not making payment of interest to respondent. Even if, there was any direction by Post Master General Gorakhpur for not disbursing interest for the 5th year, complaints should have been filed only before the District Forum in whose territorial jurisdiction Up Dakpal, Ramkola was situated. Admittedly, opposite party No. 1 where money was deposited by complainant, was earlier situated in Deoria and later on came under District Padrauna in the year 2000 and for this District, the District Forum was in Khushinagar. As complaints were filed in the year 2003, these complaints should have been filed only in District Forum Khushinagar, but, were not maintainable before the District Forum, Gorakhpur. Learned Counsel for respondent submitted that complaints can be filed at any branch of Post Office or Head Office of the Post Office. This arguments is not acceptable because complaint has to be filed only within the territorial jurisdiction of that Forum in which opposite party with whom amount was deposited or services rendered, is situated. Complaint pertaining to Up Dakpal, Ramkola, cannot be filed anywhere in India on the ground that Up Dakpal, Ramkola is only one branch of the Post Office. Merely, because Head Office of District Padrauna is under administrative control of Post Master General, Gorakhpur, complaint was not maintainable before the District Forum, Gorakhpur. Post Master General, Gorakhpur was neither necessary nor proper party and was impleaded only to create jurisdiction at Gorakhpur which cannot be allowed.
LEARNED District Forum while deciding objection of jurisdiction, observed that in appeal No. 73 of 2005 - Union of India Vs. Ganga Sagar Mills, the State Commission, Lucknow affirmed jurisdiction of Gorakhpur and in such circumstances, District Forum Gorakhpur had jurisdiction as complaints were accepted by its predecessor. Merely because State Commission has upheld jurisdiction of District Forum in another matter, which is not clear it pertained to which h year, it cannot be held that District Forum, Gorakhpur had jurisdiction to entertain the complaints. As District Forum, Gorakhpur had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaints, orders passed by District Forum being without jurisdiction are liable to set aside.
AS far complaints being time barred is concerned, Learned Counsel for petitioner submitted that as FDRs matured in the year 1988 -89 and principal amount was also returned on 7.9.2000, complaints filed on 13.6.2003 are time barred. Opposite parties, specifically, pleaded in their written statement that complaints were barred by limitation. District Forum has not giving any finding on this objection. Learned State Commission in one sentence observed as under: - "Because, due to non payment of admissible interest from time to time to the complainant by the appellant and due to continuous cause of action, the complainant is not barred by limitation."
I do not agree with the observation of Learned State Commission as merely by not paying admissible interest, cause of action continues till payment of interest. Payment of interest was not made in the year 1988 -89 pertaining to 5th year. Complaints should have been filed within two years from declining payment of interest. Not only this, when principal amount was returned on 7.9.2000, complaints must have been filed within a period of two years from receipt of FDR amount. Complainants filed complaints after two years and nine months are clearly time barred and Learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and Learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeals though complaints were time barred. Learned Counsel for respondent submitted that as petitioner admitted in para 11 & 12 of the written statement that they were always ready to make payment of interest and complainant can receive interest from Post Office, cause of action continues. In para 14 of the written statement, it was denied that opposite party was ready to make payment of interest. Even for the sake of argument if we presume that opposite party was ready to refund interest, cause of action does not continue till payment of interest and complaints must have been filed within a period of two years from receiving maturity amount without interest.
IN the light of aforesaid discussion, it becomes clear that complaints were time barred and District Forum Gorakhpur had no jurisdiction to entertain complaints and complaints are liable to be dismissed.
CONSEQUENT LY , the revision petitions filed by the petitioner are allowed and impugned order dated 25.9.2012 passed by Learned State Commission in Appeal No. 960 of 2012 - Sub Post Master, Ramkola, District Padrauna & Ors. Vs. Ganga Sugar Corporation Limited; Appeal No. 961 of 2012 - Sub Post Master, Ramkola Distrit Padrauna & Ors. Vs. Ganga Sugar Corporation Limited and in Appeal No. 962 of 2012 - Sub Post Master, Ramkola, District Padrauna & Ors.; and order of District Forum dated 22.3.2012 in Complaint No. 224 of 2003 - Ganga Sagar Corporation Limited Vs. Up Dakpal, Ramkola, District Padrauna & Ors ; in Complaint No. 225 of 2003 - Ganga Sugar Corporation Limited Vs. Up Dakpal, Ramkola, District Padrauna and Ors. and in Complaint No. 226 of 2003 - Ganga Sugar Corporation Limited Vs. Up Dakpal, Ramkola, District Padrauna & Ors.; are set aside and complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.