Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Deepa Sharma, Presiding Member
Managing Director & CEO,
Ind Swift Ltd. —Petitioner
versus
A.K. Ganesan —Respondent
Revision Petition No.3349 of 2017
(Against the Order dated 14/09/2017 in Appeal No. 1264/2017 of the State Commission Karnataka)
Decided on 17.12.2018
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Praveen Mahajan, Advocate
For the Respondent: In person
IMPORTANT POINT
When there is no illegality or infirmity in the orders passed by the lower fora, the same cannot be interfered in the revision petitions
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21 – Revision – The respondent is a senior citizen and invested his retirement benefits amounting to Rs.2,50,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- in FDR’s for 36 months with petitioner company – The amounts were not paid to the respondent / complainant even after the maturity – Hence, separate complaints were filed for both the FDR’s – Both the complaints were allowed for refund of the principal deposited with interest, compensation and costs – Aggrieved with this , the O.P filed appeals which were also dismissed with costs – Hence, the present revisions were filed – Heard the counsels, perused the documents and the record – It is held that the petitioner is bound to refund the FD amounts after their maturity - As the impugned orders do not suffer with any illegality or infirmity,the revision petitions have no merit and same are dismissed with further cost of Rs.25,000/- in each revision petition, totalling to Rs.50,000/- Rs. 25,000/- out of the cost imposed, shall be paid to the respondent and balance amount shall be deposited with Consumer Legal Aid Account-NCDRC’, within six weeks - The revision petitions are accordingly disposed of.
Result : Revision petitions are disposed of with costs.
Deepa Sharma, Presiding Member—Vide this common order, I propose to dispose off the Revision Petition No. 3349 of 2017 and 39 of 2018 filed by the petitioner, who was the opposite party in a complaint filed by the respondent before the District Forum, because similar question of law and facts are involved in both the revision petitions.
2. Revision Petition No. 3349 of 2017 has been filed by the petitioner against the order of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, the State Commission) dated 14.09.2017 passed in Appeal No.1264/2017 filed by the petitioner against the order of the District Forum in Complaint No.20 of 2017 dated 31.03.2017 filed by the respondent.
3. Revision Petition No.39 of 2018 has been filed by the petitioner against the order of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, the State Commission) dated 26.10.2017 passed in Appeal No.299/2017 filed by the petitioner against the order of the District Forum in Complaint No.762 of 2016 dated 22.12.2016 filed by the respondent.
4. The admitted facts of this case are that respondent is a senior citizen and invested his retiral benefits amounting to Rs.2,50,000/- in FDR No.219302 dated 29.11.2012 for 36 months, whose maturity date was 28.11.2015 and another fixed deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- vide FDR No.219659 dated 30.01.2013 for 36 months and whose maturity date was 29.01.2015 and thus he had deposited a total sum of Rs.3,50,000/- with the petitioner.
5. In the written version filed by the opposite party in Consumer Complaint No.762 of 2016, the petitioner had admitted the said facts. However, no affidavit evidence was filed by the opposite party.
6. In Revision Petition No. 3349 of 2017, complaint no. 20 of 2017 was filed by the respondent for refund of principal amount of Rs.3,90,100/-, which he had deposited in the form of Fixed Deposit between the period 15.10.2011 to 23.05.2012 having maturity date between the period 15.10.2014 to 22.05.2015. His claim was that despite the maturity of his deposits, the maturity deposit was not refunded and even the petitioner had stopped paying monthly hardship since June 2016. In this case, written version was filed by the petitioner and no evidence was led.
7. In complaint No.20/17, the District Forum found deficiency of service on the part of the petitioner and directed the petitioner to refund the principal amount and interest accrued on it @ 12.5% per annum from 01.10.2013, till the date of maturity and on principal deposited amount, an interest @ 18% per annum till its realization, along with compensation of Rs.25,000/- and litigation costs of Rs.3,000/- was also granted.
8. Vide order dated 22.12.2016 in Consumer Complaint No.762 of 2016, the District Forum, along with Rs.3000/- as litigation cost, awarded 12.5% interest on deposits from the date of deposit(s), till the date of maturity and thereafter 18% interest on deposit, till its realisation. The District Forum also directed the petitioner to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the respondent.
9. The petitioner preferred an appeal against both the orders of the District Forum. In Complaint no. 762 of 2016, Appeal No. 299 of 2017 was filed against the order of the District Forum and vide the impugned order, appeal of the petitioner was dismissed and order of the District forum dated 22.12.2016 was confirmed. While dismissing the appeal, cost of Rs.2500/- was also imposed upon the petitioner.
10. Appeal no. 1264 of 2017 was filed against the order of the District Forum dated 31.03.2017 in Consumer Complaint No. 20 of 2017 and the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed with cost of Rs.2500/-.
11. Aggrieved by these two impugned orders, separate revision petitions have been filed. The grounds of challenge in both the revision petitions are common. The contention of the petitioner is that he had filed an application dated 10.07.2013 bearing CP No. 27.01.2013 under Section 58AA of Companies Act, 1956 for extensi
