J D Financers vs Surender Kumar Gupta

V . K. Jain, Presiding Member 1. The complainants / respondents deposited different amounts with the petitioners by way of fixed deposits. It was agreed between the parties that the petitioner shall pay interest @ 18% per annum to the depositors. The amount deposited with the petitioners was repayable on demand. The complainants served notices upon the petitioners, seeking refund of the money deposited by them, along with interest at the agreed rate of 18% per annum. That having not been done, they approached the concerned District Forum by way of two separate complaints.

THE complaints were opposed by the petitioners, primarily on the ground that the same were barred by limitation since the money came to be deposited in the year 1993, whereas the complaints were filed in the year 2005.

VIDE its order dated 03.8.2009, The District Forum directed the petitioners to pay the amount deposited by the complainants, along with interest on that amount @ 18% per annum. They were also directed to pay Rs.5,000/ - as compensation and Rs.2,000/ - towards the cost of litigation to the complainants. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioners approached the concerned State Commission by way of two separate appeals. The said appeals having been dismissed vide impugned order dated 17.7.2014, they are before this Commission by way of these revision petitions.

IT is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that irrespective whether the period of limitation if computed from the date of filing of the complaint or from the date on which the notice demanding the amount deposited with them was served, the complaints having been filed in the year 2005 were barred by limitation, since the demand notices were served sometime in the year 2002.

ADMITTEDLY , even on receipt of the demand notice from the complainants, the petitioners did not dispute or repudiate their liability. In my opinion, in a case of this nature, where a deposit payable on demand is made, the said deposit carries interest and the firm, even on receipt of the notice of demand from the depositor does not dispute or deny its liability, the depositors have a recurrent cause of action, till the money deposited by him with the said firm is paid back to him. Of course, in a case where such a firm denied or disputes its liability the period of limitation would commence from the date on which the liability is disputed / or denied. In taking this view, I find support from the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Meerut Development Authority Vs. Mukesh Kumar Gupta, 2012 4 CPJ 12 , where the Apex Court held that failure to give possession, gives a recurrent cause of action to the person, who purchases the flat / house, the possession of which is denied to him.

THEREFORE , in the case before this Commission, since the petitioner did not dispute or deny their liability, the complainants had a recurrent case of action and therefore, would have approached the District Forum even in the year 2005, when these complaints came to be filed by them. Consequently, I find no ground to take a view different from the view taken by the State Commission in this regard and hold that the complaints were not barred by limitation prescribed under Section 24 -A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

IT is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that a fraud was played upon the District Forum by the complainants since for the purpose of showing dispatch of the second notice purported to be issued in the year 2003, a postal receipt pertaining to a stranger to the complaint was used by them, whereas in fact, the second notice was never dispatched to the petitionerq I however, find that there is no finding rendered either by the District Forum or by the State Commission, on the aforesaid plea. The obvious inference therefore is that the aforesaid plea was not pressed before the District Forum and the State Commission though the learned counsel for the petitioner maintains that the issue was pressed before the District forum, and was also pleaded in the appeal filed before the State Commission. I cannot accept the contention, since the record does not show that some application was filed by them either before the District Forum or before the State Commission, stating therein that the aforesaid contention had not been dealt with in the order passed by the District Forum/State Commission. I am therefore, not inclined to accept the aforesaid contention, particularly when it has no bearing on the merits of the case.

HOWEVER , as far as interest is concerned, I am of the view that till the time notice of demand was served upon the petitioners, the complainants are entitled to interest at the agreed rate of 18% per annum but thereafter, interest, which can be awarded only by way of damages / compensation, is not justified at the aforesaid rate. The impugned orders are therefore, modified only to the extent that the petitioners shall pay interest to the complainants @ 18% per annum till the date demand notice was served upon them in the year 2002 and thereafter, interest shall be paid @ 9% per annum. The revision petitions stands disposed of accordingly.