ORDER

1.   This Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 02.07.2019  passed by the State Commission in First Appeal No. 791 of 2015 arising out of the Order dated 30.07.2015 of the District Commission in the complaint no. 1293 of 2012.

2.   At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of the Bench to the Order dated 25.01.2021 which reads as follows:

During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the Petitioner on instructions submits that his client is ready to refund the principal amount of ₹15,18,000/-, which the Respondent/Complainant had deposited with them, as they are challenging the order only on the ground that the rate of interest on this principal amount is towards higher side and notice on this limited issue regarding rate of interest be issued.

In view of the above submissions, issue notice to the respondent/complainant only on the limited issue of rate of interest, i.e. @ 12% p.a. awarded by the State Commission in its order, for 03.08.2021.

 De hors outcome of the present Revision Petition, the Petitioner shall remit directly a sum of ₹15,000/- to the Respondent/complainant by way of demand draft to meet travel and other allied expenses in connection with the present proceedings within four weeks.

IA 7805 of 2020 (stay)

 In view of the above submission, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties, the Petitioner is directed to deposit the principal amount along with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of respective deposits of the said money by the Complainant, till the date of deposit with the District Forum.  The said amount shall be deposited with the District Forum by the Petitioner within four weeks and subject to such deposit, the operation of the impugned order is hereby stayed.  The said amount shall be released to the Complainant on his application subject to undertaking that he shall abide by the directions of this Commission.

           Order dasti.

3.   This appeal is now confined only on the point of rate of interest. Submiission is that the rate of interest 12% per annuum is on the higher side which should be reduced to a reasonable limit.

4.   Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has accepted the fact that in compliance with the Order dated 25.01.2021 the respondent has already received the principal amount along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum as was directed. Submission is that the rate of interest as awarded is not on the higher side but is in view of the mental trauma, the state of uncertainty and the harassment that was suffered by the respondent and the impugned Order deserves to be confirmed.

5.   Perused the entire record including inter alia the Order dated 02.07.2019 passed by the State Commission, Order dated 30.07.2015 passed by the District Commission and also the memo of petition in the light of the submissions raised at the bar.

6.     It may be observed that in various situations where the consumer is not given a fair deal and where he is made to suffer by the service provider by being deficient in service or by resorting to some unfair trade practice, the eventuality of such plight has been adequately taken care of by the legislation and in order to redress his grievance statutory provisions have been enacted. Sections 14 of the Act 1986 contemplates to provide compensation for the loss or injury that may be suffered by such consumer and grant even punitive damages in appropriate cases where it is deemed fit. The legislature in its wisdom has not laid down any specific method fixed in nature or any specific manner in which the loss or injury suffered by a given consumer may be quantified. It also does not provide any rigid or fixed methodology by which the grievance of a consumer may be compensated and the damages for the same may be quantified. It is not even otherwise feasible to find or provide any cut-and-dried formula of universal applicati