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


Vijay Karlekar, Proprietor, M/s. New Keerthi Garments & Another v/s Karnataka State Financial Corporation & Another

    Revision Petition No. 3279 of 2008
    Decided On, 29 April 2014
    At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI
    By, PRESIDING MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE DR. B.C. GUPTA
    By, MEMBER
    For the Petitioners: Nemo. For the Respondents: Aparna Mattoo, Advocate.


Judgment Text
K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 23.06.2008 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 119 of 2008 – Sri Vijay Karlekar & Anr. Vs. The Managing Director, K.S.F.C. & Anr. by which, while allowing appeal partly, order of District Forum allowing complaint was modified.

2. Brief facts of the case are that OP/respondent collected a sum of Rs.20,000/- and Rs. 22,183/- from complainants/petitioners in excess of their liability and inspite of request has not refunded the amount. It was further alleged that Rs.13,000/- payable as subsidy by the Government was to be drawn by the OP and was to be adjusted towards liability of the complainant, but OP has neither drawn subsidy nor adjusted towards liability of the complainant. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainants filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that cheque of Rs.22,183/- was sent to the complainant, which was refused and Rs.20,000/- were also returned by cheque dated 1.7.2004 which was also refused by the complainant and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to refund Rs.20,000/- + Rs.22,183/- along with interest @15% p.a. which comes to Rs.24,000/- and further allowed Rs.40,000/- as compensation on account of not disbursing subsidy of Rs.13,000/- and directed OP to pay total Rs.1,06,183/- with 8% p.a. OP filed appeal before State Commission and learned State Commission vide impugned order modified order of District Forum and directed OP to pay Rs.20,000/- + Rs.22,183/- with 8% p.a. interest and further directed OP to pay Rs.13,000/- with 6% p.a. against which, this revision petition has been filed.

3. None appeared for the petitioners even after service.

4. Heard learned Counsel for the respondents and perused record.

5. Perusal of written statement filed by the OP reveals that OP refunded Rs.20,000/- + Rs. 22,183/- to the complainant, but amount was not accepted by the complainant. Learned District Forum awarded 15% p.a. interest on this amount, whereas learned State Commission has allowed 8% p.a. interest on this amount which is proper because complainant himself refused to accept this amount. Learned State Commission rightly set aside compensation of Rs.40,000/- granted by District Forum and rightly allowed 6% p.a. interest on Rs.13,000/-

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
instead of compensation of Rs.40,000/-. We do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioners is dismissed with no order as to costs.
O R