Back
UNION TERRITORY CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Hon’ble Mr Justice K.K. Srivastava, President; Mrs. Devinderjit Dhatt &
Maj. Gen. S.P. Kapoor, Members
HARPREET SINGH—Appellant
versus
ATCO & ANR.—Respondents
Appeal No. 286 of 2001—Decided on 25.1.2002
Counsels for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. H.P.S. Kochhar, Advocate.
For the Respondents: None.
The appellant was entitled to interest on the amount of refund at the rate of 10% per annum from the date the excess amount was charged until its payment.
Headnote:
Refund - Consumer Dispute - The court found that the opposite parties unjustifiably charged an excess amount from the appellant and deprived the appellant of the use of the excess amount. The appellant was entitled to interest on the amount of refund at the rate of 10% per annum from the date the excess amount was charged until its payment.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant purchased a printer and a black cartridge for a certain amount. The District Forum allowed the complaint to the extent that the opposite party was directed to refund a sum of Rs. 592 to the complainant within two months from the date of the receipt of the order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the opposite parties were unjustified in charging an excess amount from the appellant and unjustifiably detained the amount, entitling the appellant to interest on the refund amount.
Issues: The main issue was the unjustified charging of an excess amount by the opposite parties and the deprivation of the appellant's use of the excess amount.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant was entitled to interest on the amount of refund at the rate of 10% per annum from the date the excess amount was charged until its payment.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed to the extent that the amount of refund of Rs. 592 shall carry interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date the excess amount was charged until its payment. The appellant was also awarded costs incurred in filing the complaint case as well as the costs of the appeal.
Mr. Justice K.K. Srivastava, President—This appeal is directed against order dated 2.7.2001 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Refressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh in Complaint Case No. 419 of 1998 filed by the appellant Mr. Harpreet Singh against respondents Samson Software Technologies and Manager, Samson Software Technologies both located at Chandigarh.
2. The District Forum-I allowed the complaint to the extent that the opposite party was directed to refund a sum of Rs. 592/- to the complainant within two months from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order. The complainant felt aggrieved against this order and filed this appeal. Notice was issued to the respondents who did not put in appearance and the appeal was heard ex parte against the respondents. Mr. H.P.S. Kochhar, Advocate contended that the District Forum-I committed an error in denying interest to the complainant on the amount of refund. This is the short grievance raised in this appeal. It would appear from perusal of the impugned order that the appellant had purchased one MX-9320 Inkjet Printer of Modi Xerox brand and one black cartridge on 16.10.1997 for a sum of Rs. 7,972/- and receipt to that effect copy Annexure C-1 was issued. It was mentioned in the receipt that the challan-cum-invoice would be sent soon on receiving the same from Modi Xerox Company, Hyderabad. Subsequently Bill No. RPO/275 dated 29.12.1997 issued by Modi Xerox Company was delivered to the complainant wherein the price of the printer was mentioned as Rs. 6,528/- as against Rs. 7,120/- charged by the opposite parties. It was alleged that the opposite parties had charged Rs. 592/- in excess of the actual price listed by the company. As mentioned above, the District Forum-I allowed the complaint and ordered for the refund of a sum of Rs. 592/-.
3. After hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant, we are of the considered opinion that the opposite parties were unjustified in charging an excess amount from the appellant and the same had been unjustifiably detained by the opposite parties and appellant/complainant was deprived of the use of a sum of Rs. 592/- which did not belong to the opposite parties. The appellant, in our considered view, is entitled to interest on the amount of refund.
4. Resultantly, we allow this appeal to the extent that the amount of refund of Rs. 592/- shall carry interest @ 10% per annum from the date the excess amount was charged i.e. 16.10.1997 till its payment. The appellant shall also get costs incurred in filing the complaint case as well as the costs of this appeal. We quantify the costs of the complaint case as well as this appeal at Rs. 500/- each, that is to say that the appellant shall get consolidated costs of Rs. 1,000/- for the complaint case decided in the District Forum as well as the costs of appeal. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Copies of this judgment be supplied to the parties free of charges.
Appeal disposed of.
