SAU SHAILEJA Vs. PEARLESS FINANCE CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition has arisen out of the Order dated 22.6.95 passed by the Maharashtra State Commission, dismissing the appeal and upholding the order of the District Forum, Buldana dated 30.12.93 allowing the complaint and directing the opposite party to pay Rs. 1,200/ - as pension, Rs. 450/ - as interest, total Rs. 1,650/ - to each of the complainants within one month from the date of receipt of the Order and in default to pay interest at the rate of 15% per annum till realisation of the amount.

(2.) WE are noticing the facts in very brief as this Commission is inclined to remand the case. The complainants, Sau Shailaja and Gopalkrushna Satyanarayan Talnikar, wife and husband, obtained pension bonds under Social Welfare Scheme, Table No. III, which is a pension scheme run by Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. having its head -office at Calcutta, the opposite party. The complainants alleged that they had purchased two bonds of Rs. l,000/ - each on 9.7.82 and as per the terms and conditions of the pension bonds, the pension was to start from 9.7.83 for a period of 10 years and thereafter they were entitled to receive the refund of the purchase price. The complainants alleged non -payment of the pensions. The complainants demanded Rs. 2.750/ - being unpaid amount of pension and refund of purchase price of the pension certificates. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party the complainants filed the complaint before the District Forum. The District Forum, Buldana partly allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to pay Rs. 1,200/ - as pension and Rs. 450/ - as interest, total Rs. 1.650/ - to each of the complainants.

(3.) FOR the above reasons, we allow the Revision Petition and set aside the impugned order of the State Commission as well as the District Forum. The application for amendment of the original complaint filed by the complainants is allowed. The District Forum shall try the amended complaint de novo after affording the parties an opportunity to substantiate their respective versions. There is no order as to costs so far. Revision Petition allowed.