w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Jitendrakumar Karsandas Ved & Others v/s Union of India & Others

    Revision Petition No. 2050 of 2017

    Decided On, 23 October 2018

    At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC


    For the Petitioners: J.N. Patel , Advocate. For the Respondents: Anil Panwar, Advocate (CGSC).

Judgment Text

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 27.3.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in Appeal No.1458 of 2014.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner No.1/complainant, his wife and daughter opened four MIS accounts with the opposite party. Opposite party No.4 (agent) forged the signature of the complainant and closed t

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

he MIS accounts prematurely and transferred Rs.4,73,325/- to a bogus account without knowledge of the complainant. Allegedly there is violation of rules as opposite parties permitted withdrawal by cash, when there is a rule that if payment of more than Rs.20,000/- is to be made, then the same should be made by cheque only. The complainant filed a complaint before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Godhra (in short ‘the District Forum’). The District Forum passed the following order on 17.07.2014:-

'1. The complaint of the complainants is hereby allowed.

2. The opponent No.3 is hereby ordered to pay up Rs.4,80,000/- to the complainants on maturity with 15% interest from 28.02.12 till realisation. If, the opponent pays up the said amount within 60 days from the date of this order, then from 28.02.12 to realisation, the opponent shall pay 9% interest on the said amount of Rs.4,80,000/-

3. The opponents shall also pay Rs.5,000/- towards the physical and mental harassment Rs.1,000/- towards the costs of this application and Rs.15,000/- for the expenses of the handwriting expert. Thus, the opponents shall pay in all Rs.16,000/-.

4. The complainant is not entitled to any other relief.

5. The opponents shall bear their own costs.

The opponents shall implement this order within 60days from the date of this order.'

3. Aggrieved by the order dated 17.7.2014 of the District Forum, opposite parties preferred an appeal bearing No.1458 of 2014 before the State Commission and the State Commission passed the following order:

'Appeal No.1458 of 2014 is allowed. Order dated 17.7.2014 rendered by the consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchmahal in complaint No.97 of 2012 is quashed and set aside. Complaint No.97 of 2012 is partly allowed and order of the District Forum dated 17.7.2014 is modified to the extent that opponent No.3 shall pay to the complainants Rs.4,80,000/- with running interest @6% from 28.2.2012 till payment. Rest of the order of the District Forum with respect to payment of cost, compensation and handwriting expert’s fees is maintained. No order as to costs in appeal.'

4. Hence the revision petition.

5. Heard the leaned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, wherein the interest on the maturity amount of Rs.4,80,000/- has been reduced from 15% as awarded by the District Forum to 6% by the State Commission. It was stated by the learned counsel that maturity amount has not been paid and until the same is paid, the complainant is entitled to get the interest at the rate of the scheme itself.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents stated that the District Forum, though allowed 15% pa. interest, but has relaxed this condition by further ordering that if the amount is paid within 60 days, the interest will be @9% p.a. It is the general practice that after maturity, the amount is paid with only saving bank rate of interest, but in the present case, the State Commission has ordered payment of maturity amount along with 6% p.a. interest beyond the date of maturity which is more than savings bank interest rate. Hence, no ground is made for accepting the revision petition.

8. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and I agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent/opposite party that after the maturity period the amount is paid with the interest payable in the saving bank account and the State Commission has already granted 6% p.a. interest, which is more than saving bank rate of interest. Hence, I do not find any merit in the revision petition for enhancing the rate of interest to be paid beyond the maturity date.

9. Based on the above discussion, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order dated 27.03.2017 of the State Commission which calls for any interference from this Commission. Accordingly, the revision petition No.2050 of 2017 is dismissed.

Already A Member?