IMPORTANT POINT
Interest cannot be awarded in addition to compensation.

Ashok Bhan, President—Complainant/Petitioner (since deceased represented through LRs) has filed this Revision Petition against the judgment and order dated 12.10.07 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in appeal No. 529/07 whereby the State Commission has dismissed the appeal filed by the complainant/Petitioner for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the District Forum.

FACTS :-

2. Briefly stated the facts as averred in the complaint are that the Complainant/Petitioner (since deceased) purchased Indica car bearing registration No. HR-55 AT 7277 under Hire Purchase and got the same financed from the Respondent for a sum of Rs.2,50,270/- vide Auto Loan Account No. 40643204. The loan amount was to be repaid in 36 equal installments of Rs.8,630/- p.m. The car purchased by the Petitioner was to be used as a Taxi to earn his livelihood. After three months of the purchase, the car was stolen. Due to theft of the car, Petitioner could not earn his livelihood and was unable to pay the installments as a result of which one of the cheque of EMI got bounced. Petitioner informed the Respondent Bank about the theft of the car and requested it to hold the post-dated cheques for further encashment. Despite the said request and intimation, Respondent served notice u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act 1881 requiring the Petitioner to repay the amount of the bounced cheque. Since the Petitioner defaulted in payment of the installments, Respondent initiated the proceedings u/s 4/S 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881. Finally, an agreement dated 22.3.04 was executed between the parties according to which the Petitioner agreed to pay a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- in full and final settlement of Auto Loan Account. It was alleged that in spite of receiving the amount in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties, Respondent got three post-dated cheques encashed and sent a letter dated 21.10.04 to the Petitioner showing a debit balance of Rs.28,921.75 in the Auto Loan Account. Petitioner protested the same but in vain. Aggrieved by this, Petitioner filed the complaint before the District Forum claiming refund of amount of three post-dated cheques, compensation and costs.

3. Respondent, on being served, entered appearance and filed its written statement denying the allegations made in the complaint.

4. District Forum taking into consideration the pleadings and evidence led by the parties held that in spite of receiving the amount strictly in adherence to full and final settlement arrived at, Respondent fraudulently got the three cheques encashed. Complaint was allowed and the Respondent Bank was directed to refund the sum of Rs.25,890/- towards the encashment of three post-dated cheques. Rs.15,000/- were awarded as compensation apart from Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation.

5. Respondent accepted the order of the District Forum and did not file the appeal. Petitioner filed the appeal before the State Commission for enhanced compensation and interest on the amount of three cheques which were encashed by the Respondent.

6. State Commission dismissed the appeal holding that the Petitioner was not entitled to any interest as adequate compensation in the sum of Rs.15,000/- had already been awarded to him.

7. Petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present Revision Petition.

8. Facts are not in dispute. Petitioner in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties paid the sum of Rs.1,40,000/- to the Respondent in full and final settlement of the Auto Loan Account No.40643204. Respondent in spite of receiving the settled amount wrongly got the three post-dated cheques encashed in the sum of Rs.25,890/. In view of the fact that the Respondent had wrongly got the three cheques encashed in spite of receiving the settled amount, District Forum directed the Respondent to refund the sum of Rs.25,890/- received by it by encashing the disputed cheques. In