Jitendra Panchal vs RAJESH DHANJIBHAI SHAH

THIS first appeal arises out of the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, whereby the State Commission allowed the appeal. The facts in brief which led the complainant to approach the State Commission are as under : The version of the complainant before the State Commission was that he had purchased 4 Sico Staple Pin Machines from the opposite party at a total cost of Rs. 2,75,220/-. Since these staple pin machines were not working properly in spite of the fact that the machines were attended to by the engineers of the opposite party, the complainant had no option but to approach the State Commission with a claim of Rs. 4,37,272/-. It is seen from the order of the State Commission that nobody appeared for the opposite party. As the opposite party did not appear before the State Commission even on the fourth time, the State Commission went against the opposite party ex-parte and passed the following order : "Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we have no reason to refuse the complainant''s claim towards the cost of the machines amounting to Rs. 2,75,220/-. The opposite party is directed to pay the amount of Rs. 2,75,220/- along with interest at 18% thereon from the date of filing the complaint i.e. from 4.6.1993 till its realisation. The opposite party shall pay the aforesaid amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of this order failing which he shall pay a penalty of Rs. 300/- per day till the amount is fully paid to the complainant. The opposite party shall pay Rs. 3,000/- towards costs within the aforesaid period. With this direction, this complaint stands allowed."

FEELING aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, the opposite party has come in appeal before us. Heard the learned Counsels appearing on both sides. We have also gone through the order of the State Commission. To our specific query as to why the opposite party did not appear before the State Commission in spite of the fact that the State Commission had sent notices four times, there was no satisfactory reply. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the order of the State Commission and on perusing the annexed documents we are of the firm opinion that the order of the State Commission cannot be faulted except the direction regarding the payment of interest at 18% and the direction regarding penalty of Rs. 300/- per day, for non-compliance of the direction of the State Commission. According to us, the interest rate is on the higher side. Considering the facts and the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice we reduce the rate of interest from 18% to 12% and delete the direction regarding penalty. Except for this modification, the order of the State Commission is upheld. We allow the appeal to the extent indicated above. While disposing of this appeal in the above terms, the appellant is directed to collect the machines lying with respondent against the payment and the respondent should extend all possible assistance in this regard. The stay of the operation of the order of the State Commission granted on 4th February, 1997 is vacated. Appeal partly allowed.