SHYAM LAL KASHYAP Vs. SUPERINTENDENT, POST & TELEGRAPH & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 15.7.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla, whereby his complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which he filed against the respondents, has been dismissed.

(2.) Appellant invested a sum of Rs.10,000/ - in National Saving Certificate. His investment matured on 29.03.2003. He approached the respondents, with whom the investment was made, on 7th July, 2003, to collect the money invested by him alongwith interest/ benefits accrued thereon. A sum of Rs.20,150/ - was payable. According to the complainant, money was paid to him, but inadvertently currency notes of Rs.10,000/ - slipped from his hand at the counter itself and the said money was deposited by the respondents as unclaimed money in the Government treasury. He alleged that he came to know about the shortfall in the money carried by him to his house, where he placed the same in a trunk, much later and then sent a letter on 26.9.2003 claiming the aforesaid amount of money. He gave reminders on 15.11.2003, 6.1.2004 and 20.4.2004. He further alleged that an inquiry was conducted and in the course of inquiry, his statement was recorded on 19th January, 2007, by an Inspector, who conducted the inquiry. He alleged that the money had been deposited in Government account as unclaimed on 17.7.2003. Further, he alleged that only two transitions had taken place on 7.7.2003, when the money was paid to him and that the other person, to whom payment had been made, did not claim that there was any shortfall in the money paid to him and carried by him to his place. So, he claimed that the money belonged to him and ought to have been paid to him. He filed a complaint on 18th May, 2009, seeking a direction to the respondents to play the amount of Rs.10,000/ - to him and also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

(3.) Complaint was contested by the respondents both on merits and also on the ground of limitation. Learned District Forum, vide impugned order, has dismissed the complaint on merits, without touching the issue of limitation raised by the respondents.