Case nº Revision Petition No. 2331 of 2015, (Against the Order dated 22/07/2015 in Appeal No. 520/2009 of the State Commission Bihar) of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, December 18, 2015 (case 1. Branch Manager, The Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. and Anr. 2. The Director, The Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd Vs Pandey Mritunjay Prosad)

PresidentMr. V.K. Jain, Presiding Member
DefenseConsumer Law
Resolution DateDecember 18, 2015
Issuing OrganizationNational Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission


  1. The complainant/respondent purchased a bond of Rs. 20,000/- from the petitioner through its agent, for a period of 20 years on 25.03.1981. The amount of the bond was payable in installments. The bond, according to the complainant, was received by him at his place though an agent of the petitioner company. This is also the case of the complainant that he continued to deposit his installments in the office of the petitioner company. The last installment according to the complainant, was deposited by him on 28.03.2000. On maturity of the bond, no payment was made to the complainant. It is alleged by the complaint that the concerned Branch Manager of the petitioner company had asked him to deposit the receipts in his office and accordingly, he had deposited the said receipts in the Branch Office of the petitioner company, for being replaced with regular receipts, but the petitioner company failed to issue regular receipts to him. Since the maturity amount was not paid to the complainant, he approached the concerned District Forum with a complaint, seeking payment of the bond amount of Rs. 20,000/- alongwith bonus amount of Rs. 9,200/-, compensation and the cost of litigation.

  2. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner company by filing a reply dated 15.02.2006. The complainant was resisted primarily on the ground that the District Forum at Kaimur had no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint and the complaint in any case was barred by limitation. None of the factual averments made in the complaint were disputed in the reply filed by the petitioner company before the District Forum.

  3. The District Forum, vide its order dated 31.07.2009, dismissed the complaint as barred by limitation. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order, the complainant approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 22.07.2015, the State Commission allowed the appeal filed by the complainant. Being aggrieved, the petitioner company is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.

  4. As noted earlier, the petitioner did not dispute any of the factual averments made in the complaint and the complaint was resisted only on the two grounds, the first being that the District Forum at Kaimur did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and the other one that the complaint was barred by limitation.

  5. As far as the territorial jurisdiction is concerned, the State Commission ruled...

To continue reading

Request your trial