PADMA BAI vs Icici Infotech Services Limited

COMPLAINAN T has filed the present Revision Petition with a limited grievance that the Fora below have erred in denying the interest @ 9% as to the period from which he was entitled to on the refunded amount.

BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are: Complainant/petitioner applied for 14 bonds of the respondent -Company @ Rs. 3,000 each and made a payment of Rs. 42,000 vide cheque No. 004292 dated 31.3.1997. He was allotted only 2 bonds out of above 14 bonds and, thus, he was entitled to receive the payment of Rs. 36,000 for the remaining bonds, which were not allotted to the petitioner. Petitioner, submitted that he had written several letters from 15.7.1997 to 22.2.2000 to the respondent to refund the said amount and the respondent informed the petitioner vide its letter dated 10.11.1998 that the amount could not be refunded till the respondent receives the indemnity bonds from the petitioner. The indemnity bonds were submitted by the petitioner on 26.3.1999 and the respondent refunded Rs. 36,095 (which included the amount of interest on application money of Rs. 95) to the petitioner vide cheque No. 419516 dated 17.4.2000.

AGGRIEVED against non -payment of interest w.e.f. 1.4.1997 to 22.4.2000, i.e., 37 months (as demanded by the petitioner on the refundable amount of Rs. 36,000), the petitioner filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Barracks Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum'' for short). District Forum directed the respondent to pay interest @ 9% from 1.5.1999 till 22.2.2000 on the amount of Rs. 36,000 within 30 days failing which the amount of interest will carry further interest @ 9% from the date of Order till realization. Aggrieved against the Order of the District Forum, petitioner filed an Appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission'' for short) with a limited grievance that the petitioner was entitled to interest from 1.4.1997 to 22.4.2000 on the delayed payment of refund amount of Rs. 36,000 and the District Forum had erred in granting the interest from 1.5.1999.

THE State Commission dismissed the Appeal with slight modification that the petitioner would be entitled to interest w.e.f. 1.4.1999 instead of 1.5.1999. It has been held that the respondent was not obliged to pay the interest till the indemnity bonds were received by the respondent. On receipt of the indemnity bonds, the sum of Rs. 36,000 should have been sent within 7 days from the closure of the issue but the respondent took 37 months in doing so. The indemnity bonds were sent on 26.3.1999. Accordingly, the State Commission modified the Order of the District Forum and awarded interest w.e.f. 1.4.1999 instead of 1.5.1999.

AGGRIEVED against the Order of the State Commission, the present Revision Petition has been filed seeking interest w.e.f. 1.4.1997 to 20.4.2000 on the refund amount of Rs. 36,000 against 12 unallotted bonds.

COUNSEL for the parties have been heard at length.

WE find ourselves in agreement with the view taken by the State Commission to the effect that the respondent could not send the refunded amount till the receipt of the indemnity bonds from the petitioner. Though the amount should have been refunded within 7 days from the closure of the issue but the respondent took 37 months in doing so partly because of the fault of the petitioner in not sending the indemnity bonds and partly because of the fault of the respondent as it took nearly one year in remitting the amount after the receipt of the indemnity bonds. For the delay caused because of the fault of the petitioner, he cannot be compensated but for the delay which was caused because of the fault of the respondent, the petitioner is certainly entitled to be compensated. For the earlier delay, the petitioner cannot be compensated as the delay was caused due to his own fault. The indemnity bonds were sent by the petitioner on 26.3.1999 and, accordingly, interest has been awarded by the State Commission w.e.f. 1.4.1999.

FOR the reasons stated above, we find no infirmity in the Order of the State Commission and upheld the same. The Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs. R.P. dismissed.