TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD. vs K.A.CHENNAPPA

PETITIONER was the opposite party before the District Forum on a complaint filed by the respondent-complainant. Complaint was that the complainant had purchased 10% MTNL Bonds of 1st Series for Rs. 1.00 lakh which were due for redemption on 16.2.1997. On 28.2.1997 complainant sent to the petitioner certificate for the said investment duly discharged on redemption which were received by the petitioner. Complainant did not receive the redemption money. He wrote various letters to the petitioner who ultimately replied that the redemption warrant had since been encashed at CDCC Bank Limited, Davangere through Shri Ambahavani Urban-Cooperative Bank Limited on 11.6.1997 itself. Complainant replied that he never received any redemption warrants. It would appear that these redemption warrants were sent by registered post and these were intercepted and by impersonating the complainant and were encashed.

COMPLAINING deficiency in service complaint was filed by the complainant before the District Forum which was allowed by the District Forum. The District Forum directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 1.00 lakh to the complainant with interest @ 20% per annum from 15.3.1997 till payment. Cost of Rs. 1,000/- was also awarded. Petitioner went in appeal before the State Commission. It was barred by 113 days delay. No cogent reason was given as to why there was so much delay in filing the appeal. It was usual story of delay, the file-moving one table to another and ultimately delay at the hands of the Advocate. State Commission did not find any sufficient cause to condone the delay. We agree. Since there is no error in the impugned, judgment of the State Commission we are not inclined to exercise our jurisdiction under clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. However, the award of interest @ 20% per annum appears to be excessive. Mr. N. Ganapathy, learned counsel for the respondent-complainant in all fairness said that he will abide by such rate of interest as this Commission may think reasonable. We will, therefore, modify the order of the District Forum and would direct that instead of rate of interest being 20%, it shall be 12% per annum. Rest of the order of the District Forum shall stand. With these observations, this revision petition is dismissed.