Back
A.No.300/2014
1/6
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
Appeal No. A/14/300
(Arisen out of order dated 12/03/2014 passed in complaint No.542/2011 by District
Thane)
Smt.Bhagwati J. Vyas
Thru Mr.Devesh J. Vyas, C.A.
16, Vedashree Apartment,
Eastern Express Highway,
Bhaskar Colony, Naupada,
Thane (W) – 400 602.
...........Appellant (s)
Versus
The Corporation Bank
Shop No.9, C3/11, Municipal Road,
Near Kasharam Statue,
Ulhasnagar, Dist. Thane-421 003.
............Respondent (s)
BEFORE:
P. B. Joshi PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
Narendra Kawde MEMBER
For the
Appellant:
Mr.A.V. Patwardhan, Advocate for the
appellant.
For the
Respondent:
Ms.Vinaya Chavan, Advocate for the
respondent.
ORDER
Per Shri P.B. Joshi, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member
Being aggrieved by the order dated 12/03/2014 passed in consumer
complaint No.542/2011 dismissing the complaint by District Forum,
Thane, org. complainant came in appeal.
2. Facts necessary for deciding this appeal can be stated as under :-
A Pay Order of Rs.15 Lakhs was purchased by M/s.Mahadev
Homes in the name of complainant on 23/08/2004 and it was received by
husband of the complainant on behalf of the complainant. Complainant
was knowing about it. Husband of the complainant died on 24/12/2009.
Thereafter, the complainant found one xerox copy of the Pay Order in the
papers of her husband. In January 2010 the complainant applied to
A.No.300/2014
2/6
opponent-Bank for issuing duplicate Pay Order and sent a xerox copy of
the said Pay Order found by her in the papers of her husband. Thereafter,
the complainant found the original Pay Order in the other papers in the
house. Then on 04/03/2010 the complainant applied to opponent-Bank for
revalidation of the Pay order and payment of the amount. However, the
Pay Order was not revalidated by the opponent-Bank. The complainant
issued a letter and even legal notice to the opponent. However, in vain.
Hence, the complainant filed a consumer complaint with request that
opponent-Bank be directed to revalidate the said Pay Order and pay sum
of Rs.15 Lakhs to the complainant upon its presentation for encashment.
The complainant also prayed that opponent-Bank be directed to pay an
amount of Rs.2,12,500/- to the complainant as compensation for mental
torture and agony. The complainant also claimed interest on the said
amount of Rs.15 Lakhs @ 10% p.a. from 01/03/2010 to 31/08/2011 and
further interest from 01/09/2011 till realization. The complainant prayed
for Rs.50,000/- towards costs of the complaint.
3. Opponent-Bank resisted the complaint by filing written version and
admitted about purchase of said Pay Order by M/s.Mahadev Homes in the
name of complainant, however, contended that it was not presented for
encashment within the period prescribed. It was also contended that it was
necessary to present the Pay Order or Demand Draft for revalidation
within one year from the date of issue and revalidation should be at the
written request of the purchaser. It was not presented for revalidation
within one year. There was no written request for revalidation by the
purchaser of the Pay Order on the other hand purchaser informed the Bank
not to revalidate the Pay Order. Hence, request of the complainant for
revalidation of the Pay Order was refused. It was contended that
complainant is not entitled for revalidation of the Pay Order and the
amount of Pay Order and other amounts as claimed. Opponent-Bank
prayed for dismissal of complaint.
A.No.300/2014
3/6
4. Considering the rival pleading of the parties and the evidence led by
the parties, District Forum dismissed the complaint. It is against that order
present appeal has been preferred by org. complainant.
5. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, considering the
submissions made before us by both parties, considering the record and
scope of the appeal, f
