Order :

PER HON’BLE SMT. MEENA RAMANATHAN, MEMBER (NON-JUDICIAL)

1. The appeal is filed u/s 27(A) of Consumer Protection Act,1986, R/w Sec.73 (1) (a) of C.P.Act, 2019 by the opposite party, aggrieved by the order of District Consumer Commission-I, Hyderabad in EA 17/2020 in CC 225/2016,.

2. The parties are herein after referred to as they were arrayed before the District Commission, as complainant and opposite party.

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal in execution are that the Complainant initially filed CC 225/2016 on the file of District Commission-I, Hyderabad. The said CC was allowed by the District Commission vide order dated 22.11.2019.The following order was passed by the Commission below :-

“In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite party to pay a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant for causing mental agony and inconvenience to her and further directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards costs of the complaint. Time for compliance is 30 days from the date of service of this order”.

4. Aggrieved by the above order, the opposite party preferred FA 141/2020 before this Commission and the appeal was dismissed by this Commission, vide order dated 10.07.2024. The order passed by this Commission is reproduced below:-

“In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs of Rs.20,000/- payable to the respondent/complainant, by confirming the impugned order under appeal dated 22.11.2019 in CC 225/2016 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Hyderabad. Time for compliance is one month from the date of receipt of the order. The Respondent/complainant is permitted to withdraw Rs.2,30,000/- deposited by the appellant/opposite party along with accrued interest while preferring the appeal after the lapse of revision time”.

5. While dismissing the appeal, this Commission imposed further costs of Rs.20,000/- and permitted the complainant to withdraw the statutory deposit along with accrued interest. At the time of preferring the appeal, the opposite party deposited Rs.2,30,000/-.

6. The complainant filed the cheque petition to receive the amount after lapse of revision time. The amount deposited along with accumulated interest amounted to Rs.3,37,518/-.The controversy that needs to be addressed in the Appeal Execution (AE) is whether the Complainant is entitled to only Rs.5,00,000/- plus Rs.30,000/- towards costs or is she entitled to receive the said amount along with accrued interest.

7. As per the complainant’s calculations, the opposite party deposited 50% before the State Commission at the time of preferring the appeal vide FA 142/2020-i.e.

50% of Rs.5,00,000/- = Rs.2,50,000/-

50% of Rs.10,000/- costs = Rs. 5,000/-

_______________Rs.2,55,000/-________________

8. She has only received this amount along with interest which comes to Rs.3,37,518/-.The complainant claims that she has to receive the balance amount of Rs.2,50,000/- imposed by this State Commission, Therefore, she is entitled to receive a balance of Rs.2,75,000/-along with interest.

9. Interestingly the District Commission in their impugned order did not mention that the complainant is entitled to receive interest on the awarded amounts. Neither was it mentioned that after time for compliance, the awarded amounts will attract interest. This was not challenged by the complainant. This Commission only imposed extra costs while confirming the impugned order and no mention of interest on awarded amounts was referred to in this Commission’s order.

10. It only stands to reason that the complainant is entitled to receive the amount as mentioned in the order of the District Commission. The order of the Commission below which was confirmed by this State Commission is conspicuously silent about the interest factor, therefore, the complainant cannot claim the interest amount as her right and not take it into account towards the decreetal amount.The original order did not inc