CENTAK CHEMICALS LTD. vs C. YADAVA REDDY

THE Opposite parties in CD 115/95, District Forum, Warangal i.e., M/s. Centak Chemicals Ltd., and M/s. Birla Consultancy & Software Services are the appellants in this appeal. THE respondent herein filed a complaint stating that he applied for 200 shares and paid a sum of Rs. 9000/- on 6.6.94, which was received by the opposite parties alongwith application for allotment of shares. Since the complainant did not receive any intimation either of allotment of shares or refund of the amount, he issued a legal notice on 17.9.94. To the said notice, the second Opposite party sent a reply on 30.9.94 stating that the refund order was sent. But as the complainant did not receive the refund order, he again issued notice on 11.10.94 and 8.11.94 intimating the opposite party No. 2 about the non- receipt of the refund order and demanded payment of the amount. As the opposite parties did not send the amount, he filed a complaint claiming recovery of Rs. 9000/- with interest at 18% p.a. and also damages of Rs. 20,000/- and costs of Rs.1000/-.

THE first opposite party sent a letter addressed to the District Forum on 31.3.95 stating that they have requested their refund banker to check the status of payment against the complainant''s refund order. In case the complainant appears in the unpaid warrant list of their refund banker then they will send him duplicate refund order even without indemnity bond. This letter was received by the District Forum on 17.4.95. In the meanwhile the complainant received the refund order for a sum of Rs. 9000/- on 6.6.95 and the same was encashed. THErefore, the District Forum held that the complainant is not entitled for relief of Rs. 9000/- but as there is delay in refunding the amount, the District Forum directed payment of compensation of Rs. 10,000/-by way of damages and Rs. 1000/- towards costs. In this appeal, preferred by the opposite parties it is submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. We are not inclined to agree with this contention. The application for refund was made on 6.6.94 and it was only on 6.6.95 that the complainant received the refund order. Although in the letter dated 30.9.94 the second opposite party stated that it had sent the refund order but on verification it was found that the complainant did not receive the refund order and so they sent a fresh refund order during the pendency of the complaint. We are, therefore, of the view that there is considerable delay on the part of the opposite parties in sending the refund order. Since the complainant was deprived of the use of the money during this period, the complainant is entitled for payment of interest on Rs. 9000/- at 15% p.a. from 17.9.94 i.e. the date of issuance of legal notice by the complainant to the opposite parties.

In the result, we modify the order of the District Forum by directing the opposite parties to pay interest at the rate of 15% p.a. on Rs. 9,000/- from 17.9.94 till 6.5.95 to this extent the appeal is allowed and the order of the District Forum is confirmed so far as costs. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. Order modified.