AMRIT DEVI vs TRILOCHAN SINGH DAWAR

BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that the complainant deposited an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- ''-vide two pay orders, dated 7th June, 1989 for Rs. 15,000/- and dated 21st July, 1989 of Rs. 85,000/- drawn on Indian Bank, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi. The opposite party it is alleged, agreed to re-pay the amount with interest @15% P.A. from December, 1989 in instalments of Rs. 2,000/-each per Mensum. They, in order to show their bona fide issued a cheque for Rs. 7,200/- instead of Rs. 2,000/- on 27th December, 1989 in favour of the complainant. It was presented to the Bank which was dis-honoured on the ground "refer to drawer". Thereafter the complainant made various requests to the opposite party to make the payment, but they failed to do so. Consequently, she filed a complaint for recovery of the amount.

NOTICE on the complaint was given to the respondent who appeared on 5th October, 1992. The complaint has been contested on behalf of the respondent. He inter-alia pleaded that the complainant was appointed as carry and forward agent for M/s. Gold ''N'' Gold Processed Foods. Therefore, she is not entitled to refund of the amount. It is further pleaded that she is not a consumer. The complainant has filed a rejoinder to the written statement, wherein she has denied allegations of the opposite party. It is stated by her that the amount was deposited by her with the respondent as a deposit.

The case was fixed for 22nd July, 1993 for arguments. However, no one appeared on behalf of the respondent. Consequently, they were proceeded against ex-parte on that date. The learned Counsel for the complainant requested for filing an additional affidavit which was allowed and the case was adjourned for 18.8.93. Today he has filed an additional affidavit of the complainant.

THE two questions that arises for determination are, firstly whether the complainant deposited the amount of rupees One Lakh as deposit or she paid the amount to the respondent in view of agreement to get an agency of Gold ''N'' Gold and secondly whether she is a consumer. Mr. Anand learned Counsel for the complainant has referred to a letter dated 10th October, 1989 written by Mr. T.S. Dawar, respondent. It is inter-alia stated in the letter that an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-had been received by him as a deposit, that he would return the same in monthly instalments of Rs. 2,000/- each w.e.f. December, 89 and that the entire amount would be re-paid. He also undertook to pay interest to the complainant @15% P.A. From a reading of the letter it is clear that the amount was deposited by the complainant with him as a deposit and not for taking agency from him. After taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and the definition of the word ''service'' we are of that the view the complainant is a consumer. The above views further find support from the fact that the respondent gave a cheque of Rs. 7,200 /- to the complainant on 27th December, 1989 which on presentation, was dis-honoured by the bank of the respondent.

THE complainant according to the agreement between the parties is entitled to interest on that amount @ 15% p.a. Mr. Anand states that the two cheques were handed over to the respondent on 7th June and 21st July, 1989 and the complaint was filed on 14th August, 1992. However, the complainant upto the time of filing the complaint claims interest only for three years which comes to Rs. 45,000/-. We allow the same. For the aforesaid reasons we accept the complaint and direct the respondent to pay an amount of Rs. 1,45,000/- with interest @ 15% p.a. from 15th August, 1992 till the date of payment within three months from the date of the order. In case he fails to make the payment action shall be taken against him under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Costs Rs. 1,500/-. Complaint allowed with costs.