AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
None appears for the Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party. Ms. Tessy Varghese, Advocate, appearing on behalf of Mr. N.M. Varghese, Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant, is present.
I observe from the record that vide order dated 31.07.2015 this Revision Petition was dismissed for non-prosecution. Thereafter, Miscellaneous Application No.535 of 2015 was filed for restoration of the Revision Petition. Vide order dated 27.11.2015 the said application was allowed, subject to the Revision Petitioner paying to the Respondent a sum of Rs.10,000/- as costs within two weeks from that date, and the matter was adjourned for today.
Even today none appears for the Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party and the Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant submits that the costs have not been paid till date.
I also observe from the record that the State Commission vide the impugned order, dated 30.12.2010, has concurred with the finding of the District Forum with respect to deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party, the Revision Petitioner herein, but, however, has modified the order of the District Forum, directing the Opposite Party to refund a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the Respondent with interest @ 9% from July, 2005 till realization and costs of Rs.2000/-.
A brief perusal of the record shows that the Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party has admitted to issuance of two Fixed Deposits of Rs.1,00,000/- each on 08.01.2001 and 27.09.2001 respectively for a period of one year and it is the Respondent/Complainant''s case that these amounts were not repaid to him with the promised interest.
The District Forum after perusal of the Fixed Deposit receipts had concluded that there was deficiency of service on the part of the Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party and directed him to refund Rs.2,00,000/- to the Complainant with 14% interest from July, 2005 till realization with costs of Rs.2000/-. To reiterate, the State Commission concurred with the finding of the District Forum but, however, modified the rate of interest and reduced it from 14% to 9%.
In this view of the matter, even on merits I do not see it a fit case for interference under our limited jurisdiction, as specified in by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta v. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2011 2 CPJ 19 . I am of the considered opinion that there is no illegality or infirmity in the concurrent orders of the Fora below.
I also observe that similar Revision Petitions, being Revision Petitions No.1078, 1079 and 1080 of 2011, filed by the Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party, were dismissed for non-prosecution as well as in default by this Commission vide order dated 31.07.2015.
In the result, this Revision Petition fails and is dismissed accordingly, with no order as to costs.