SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI
Honble Thiru Justice E.J. Bellie, President; Thiru Pulavar
V.S. Kandasamy & Dr. (Tmt.) Angel Arulraj, Members
V. HALAYSA SUNDARAM—Appellant
versus
BEST & CROMPTON ENGG. LTD.—Respondent
A.P. No. 227 of 1996—Decided on 18.2.1997

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : In person.
For the Respondent:Thiru Franco Louis, Advocate.

Deficiency in service can lead to an order for refund of deposit amounts with interest.

Headnote:

Deficiency in Service - Deposit Refund - The court found deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party for not paying the deposit amounts and ordered the opposite party to pay the complainant the sum of Rs. 25,000 with interest at 15% p.a.

Fact of the Case:

The complainant and his wife made deposits with the opposite party Company. The Company did not pay the deposit amounts with interest after maturity, leading to the complaint seeking a refund and interest.

Finding of the Court:

The District Forum found deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and ordered them to pay the complainant the deposit amounts with interest. The appeal filed by the complainant seeking additional compensation was dismissed.

Issues: The main issue was the non-payment of deposit amounts and interest by the opposite party Company, leading to the complaint seeking a refund.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party for not paying the deposit amounts, leading to the order for refund with interest.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.

ORDER

Thiru Justice E.J. Bellie, President—When the matter was called, there was no representation for the appellant/complainant. The case of the complainant was that he and his wife made deposits of Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- respectively with the opposite party Company. Even after the maturity of these deposits the Company has not paid these amounts with interest thereon. On these allegations the complaint has been filed seeking an order for refund of the deposit amounts and also interest @ 15% p.a.

2. The opposite parties contested the matter simply stating that it is in financial difficulty and after some time when the financial position improved they would pay the amounts.

3. The District Forum Held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in not paying the deposit amounts and it passed an order directing the opposite party to pay to the complainant the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with interest thereon @ 15% p.a. from the dates of deposits till payment. It is against this order the complainant has filed the appeal.

4. Now in the appeal it is stated that the District Forum should have ordered payment of compensation for the mental sufferings and for damages. But in the complaint itself, refund of the deposit amount and interest thereon @ 15% p.a. only has been claimed and nothing else has been payed for. There is absolutely no merit in this appeal.

5. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.

Appeal dismissed.



Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top