Back
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BOMBAY
Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.G. Loney, President;
Mr. M.G. Gavai, Member; Smt. Ellen Dharkar, Member
TELECOM DISTRICT ENGINEER—Appellant
versus
SANJAY BABUBHAI THAKKAR—Respondent
Appeal No. 318/91—Decided on 16.1.1992
Interest can be awarded for wrong recovery, and the court has the authority to uphold such awards.
Headnote:
Interest - Telecom Dispute - The District Forum ordered the payment of interest at the rate of 18% p.a. on the wrong recovery of Rs. 700 from the complainant, which was upheld by the court.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant wrongly collected Rs. 700 from the respondent, which was admitted and refunded. The District Forum ordered the payment of interest and costs.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the appeal and maintained the order of the District Forum, upholding the payment of interest and costs to the respondent.
Issues: The issue was whether interest should be awarded for the wrong recovery of Rs. 700 from the complainant by the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the interest was awarded for the wrong recovery of Rs. 700 from the complainant, and upheld the District Forum's decision.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay Rs. 300 to the respondent as costs of the appeal.
Mr. Justice G.G. Loney, President—This is an appeal against the order of District Forum, Sangli dated 21.10.1991 passed in Complaint No. 185/91. The respondent had approached the District Forum, Sangli with a complaint that Rs. 700/- were wrongly collected from him by the appellant, although, he was not legally required to deposit that amount. The mistake has been admitted by the appellant and also refunded the amount of Rs. 700/- was also returned to the complainant on 19.7.1991. The District Forum on the basis of the facts appearing in this case ordered the payment of interest at the rate of 18% p.a. on Rs. 700/- from the date of payment and also awarded Rs. 100/- as costs.
2. The Telecom District Engineer, Sangli preferred this appeal against the aforesaid order. Shri B.L. Manmohan appeared for the Department and Respondent appeared in person.
3. Shri Manmohan has contended that there is no provision for payment of interest on the deposit made with the Department, and therefore, according to him impugned order is illegal. There is no substance in this argument in as much as the interest is awarded by the District Forum for wrong recovery of Rs. 700/- from the complainant. We, therefore, find no substance in any of the contentions raised in this Appeal. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The order of the District Forum, Sangli is maintained. The respondent Sanjay Thakkar has claimed the costs of Rs. 300/- in this appeal. According to him, he has incurred the expenses of Rs. 300/- for attending this appeal. We find the demand of Rs. 300/- as costs of this appeal is reasonable and, therefore, the appellant shall pay Rs. 300/- to the respondent as costs of this appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
–
