The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of the complainant as a consumer to a refund of deposits with interest, the validity of the order passed by two members of the District Forum, and the absence of limitation for filing consumer complaints before the amendment of Section 24(A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

ORDER

P.N. Kashalkar, Presiding Judicial Member - Being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the District Forum, Pune in Consumer Complaint No. 964/1993 decided on 16.2.2000 whereby, by allowing the complaint O.Ps. have been directed to refund amount of deposits of the complainant at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of respective deposits within three months from the date of order, aggrieved thereby the Org. O.Ps. have filed this appeal.

2. Briefly case of the parties in the Forum below may be stated as under:

The complainant Shri Sadashiv Haribhau Shinde, R/o Shukrawar Peth, Pune had filed consumer complaint alleging that he had made certain deposits with O.Ps. consequent upon advertisement put in Daily Sakal by O.Ps. with the assurance that depositors would get attractive interest of 2% per month. The complainant deposited Rs. 2 lakh between the periods May 1989 to September 1989. He paid amounts by cheques and O.Ps. passed receipts for the same. But O.Ps. failed to pay interest on those deposits from January 1990. The interest was paid only upto December 1989 on those deposits by O.Ps. The complainant demanded full amount of interest on all the deposits. O.Ps issued cheques of various amounts on various dates from 12.2.1990 to 19.4.1990. But, those cheques were dishonoured on account of insufficient funds. The complainant therefore filed consumer complaint and claimed refund of amount with interest from the O.Ps.

3. The O.Ps. filed written statement and pleaded that the complainant is not a consumer and Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the same. According to O.Ps. the entire transaction was in respect of sale and purchase of shares, debentures, and resale transactions. So, those were commercial transactions and therefore Consumer Forum cannot take cognizance of such transactions. The O.Ps also pleaded that the complaint is barred by limitation. The O.Ps. pleaded that they had not received amounts as deposits from the complainant. Cheque Nos. 1 and 4 each of Rs. 50,000 was given as deposits and other cheques at serial No. 2, 3, 5 and 6 were given for spot transaction. Those spot transactions are commercial transactions and therefore the complainant is not a consumer. According to O.Ps. they have returned whole the amount to the complainant but the complainant is not entitled to get any interest on them. According to O.Ps. the complainant has filed this complaint with mala fide intention hence it should be dismissed with cost.

4. The parties filed affidavits and documents in support of their rival pleadings. Considering the same the Forum below held that consumer complaint as filed by the complainant was within time. The complainant was a consumer and O.Ps. were guilty of deficiency in service in not returning the deposited amount with interest. As such it was pleased to pass impugned award. Aggrieved thereby O.Ps. filed this appeal.

5. We heard appellant in person and Mr. Rahul Gandhi, Adv. for the respondents.

6. We are finding that part of the award is sustainable in law inasmuch as Forum below has directed refund of deposits to the complainant with interest. But interest awarded is on higher side. Interest at the rate of 24% have been awarded by the Forum below without assigning any reason. In the deposit receipts, it is not mentioned that interest at the rate of 24% shall be paid. Therefore, interest at the rate of 24% per annum is surely on higher side. In the complaint, it was mentioned that in the advertisement O.Ps. have mentioned that 2% per month would be given to the depositors. At page 57 of appeal memo there is advertisement. It is no where mention that interest at the rate of 2% per month would be granted. Even on deposit receipts, there is no mentioned that amount would carry interest at the rate of 2% per month (or 24% per annum). Therefore awarding interest at the rate of 24% per annum is erroneous and bad in law. So, by allowing this appeal partly, the same will have to be reduced sub