UNION OF INDIA Vs. DEVENDRA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the authorized representative of the petitioner as well as the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/complainant.

(2.) STATE Commission, Maharashtra after appreciating the evidence arrived at a conclusion that the payment of postal orders should be done strictly on production of original postal orders and counter foils. However, before the said postal orders could be encashed, the complainant was victim of fraud and misrepresentation. However, before the said postal orders could be encashed by any unknown person(s), Postal Department had already stopped the payment of postal orders. Thereafter, the complainant moved the competent authority for repayment within prescribed time limit of 6 months from the last date of the month of issue. The amount was not refunded. Hence, the complaint No.63 of 2001 was filed before the District Forum, Chandrapur. The District Forum dismissed the complaint by the order dated 28.9.2001.

(3.) AGAINST that order, the complainant preferred F.A. No.1972 of 2001 before the State Commission.