NANAK CHAND vs GURSHANT MOTORS LTD.

THIS appeal has been filed against the order of the District Forum No. 1 dated 12th October, 1992 by which his complaint has been dismissed.

BRIEFLY the facts are that the complainant, his wife and his two sons made four applications for shares to the respondent. Such application was signed by the complainant and accompanied with a cheque of Rs. 1,500-00. The applicants were declared unsuccessful and therefore, they became entitled to the refund of the amount deposited by them. However, the amount was not refunded to them. It is pleaded, that on their respresentation, they were asked by the respondent to furnish Indemnity Bonds which they did. Thereafter they received cheques on 25th July, 1991. It is next pleaded that the other un-successful applicants received the refund amount on 15-12-1990 and the applicant should have also received the amounts on that date. Consequently, he requested the respondent to pay the interest on the amounts of the cheques, w.e.f. 15th December, 1990 till 25th July, 1991 @ 18% p.a., but these were not paid. Consequently, he filed the complaint before the District Forum, which was dismissed. He has come up in appeal against the said order to the Commission.

The contention of the appellant is that the money deposited by him were not refunded by the respondent on 15th December, 1990, as it was done in the case of others. On the other hand it was refunded on 25th July, 1991. Therefore he was entitled to the interest on the amount from 15th December, 1990 to 25th July, 1991.

WE have duly considered the matter but do not find any substance therein. The appellant admittedly wrote a letter to the respondent for refund of the amounts and ultimately he was directed to file Indemnity Bond by them. It appears from the facts that the amounts were refunded by them to the complainant at the time when the amounts were refunded to other un-successful applicants. Moreover, the cheques sent to him were lost in transit. It is for this reason that he did not receive them and was required to furnish Indemnity Bonds. As soon as Indemnity Bond were furnished the amounts were refunded to him and his family members. In the circumstances it can not be said that there was any deficiency in the service on the part of the respondent. For the aforesaid reasons we do not find any merit in the appeal and dismiss the same with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.