DAKPAL & ANR. vs SOHAN LAL PARNAMI S/O SHRI PARMANAND PARNAMI

By this Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), the Post Master, Jawahar Nagar and one of its Associates, the Opposite Parties in the Complaint, call in question the correctness and legality of the order dated 04.01.2016, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Jaipur (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeal No. 731 of 2015. By the impugned order, the State Commission has affirmed the order dated 11.05.2015, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum - III, Jaipur (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint Case No. 1890/2012 (Old Complaint Case No. 1295/2010). By the said order, while allowing the Complaint, filed by the Respondent herein, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioners in not refunding the monthly amounts, totalling 4,24,000/-, deposited by him in the Five Years Post Office Recurring Scheme, during the period from 31.12.2005 to 29.07.2008, along with the scheduled rate of interest, the District Forum had directed the Petitioners to refund to the Complainant the aforesaid amount along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of maturity till realization, along with a compensation of 2,00,000/- for causing him mental agony and stress all these years.

As regards the quantum of the amount deposited by the Complainant under the said Scheme from time to time, rejecting the stand of the Petitioners that a part of the amount had been misappropriated by its Collecting Agent, both the Forums below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the Complainant had in fact parted with a total sum of 4,24,000/- for being deposited in his account to an Agent, duly authorized by the Petitioners and, therefore, for any act of malfeasance or misfeasance on the part of its Agent, a Depositor cannot be held to be responsible.

On 29.04.2016, when the Revision Petition came up for motion hearing, taking into consideration the said pure finding of fact, which had not been challenged as being perverse, and the fact that the Petitioners had not refunded to the Complainant even the amount along with interest, on which there was no dispute, but finding some substance in the submission of learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the rate of interest awarded by the lower Fora on the principal amount was on the higher side, notice in the Petition was issued to the Respondent/Complainant, only confined to the rate of interest.

Hence, the short controversy surviving for consideration is whether the Forums below were justified in awarding to the Complainant interest @ 18% p.a. on the said amount, in addition to the compensation of lump-sum amount of 2,00,000/-.

Assailing the order impugned in the Petition, Mr. Anil Panwar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, submits that apart from the fact under the Post Office Recurring Deposit Rules, 1981, the maximum rate of interest, payable on such deposits, for the relevant period, was @ 7.5% quarterly compounded, the Forums below had ignored the fact that in his Complaint the Complainant had himself claimed interest @ 12% p.a. Learned Counsel has attempted to again rake up the issue of award of compensation, which already stood rejected at the threshold when notice was issued to the Complainant.

Per contra , Mr. Nikhil Singhvi, learned Counsel appearing for the Complainant, submits that having regard to the conduct of the Petitioners in withholding the legitimate dues of a 85 years old person for a number of years, without any rhyme or reason, the award of interest @ 18% p.a. cannot be said to be unreasonable, when compared with the harassment undergone by the Complainant. It is urged that since the amount due to the Complainant after the maturity period was illegally withheld by the Petitioner, 1981 Rules cannot be made applicable for determining the rate of interest. It is asserted that award of compensation is also of no solace to the Complainant, for the mental agony undergone by him.

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record, including the afore-stated Rules, we are of the opinion that the interest awarded by the lower Fora is on the higher side, particularly, when additional compensation of 2,00,000/- has also been awarded in favour of the Complainant. Though it is true that, as per the 1981 Rules, the rate of interest for the relevant period was @ 7.5% quarterly compounded but thereafter it has been fluctuating from the year 2011 to the year 2014, which during some point was as high as @ 13.5% quarterly compounded. We are of the view that it would be just and proper if the Petitioners are directed to pay to the Complainant interest for the period from 31.12.2005 to 31.12.2008 @ 7.5% quarterly compounded and from 01.01.2009 till the date of actual realization simple interest @ 9% p.a. Ordered accordingly. The remaining directions by the lower Fora are maintained. The payment in terms of this order shall be made to the Complainant within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

The Revision Petition stands disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.