P. Praveena Kumari vs CBC Honda & Anr

Subhash Chandra, Presiding Member

RA no. 192 of 2022 (In chamber)

This is a review application of a final order of this Commission dated 26.08.2020 seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded. The review petitioner had booked an Activa 3G scooter on 30.05.2015 with the respondent no. 1 by paying booking amount of Rs.1000/ and on 04.06.2015, the petitioner paid an amount of Rs.56,530/-. She subsequently learnt that the respondent had charged her Rs. 1750/- which amount was over and above the price advertised and had therefore approached the District Forum, Thiruvananthapuram (in short, ‘District Forum’) in CC No. 574 of 2015 on 28.11.2015. Vide Order dated 30.06.2017 the District Forum allowed the complaint and ordered that “In the result, complaint is partly allowed and 1st opposite party is directed to pay Rs.57,530/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 15.06.2015 up to 26.09.2015 and cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Opposite parties 2 and 3 are exonerated.”

The petitioner approached the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala (in short, ‘State Commission’) by way of Appeal No. 333 of 2018 seeking modification of the order of the District Forum allowing her to realize Rs 4,00,000/- as compensation from the opposite party. The State Commission on 27.07.2018 dismissed the appeal on grounds of limitation as delay of 250 days was not sufficiently explained and also on merits.

This order was challenged by the petitioner in RP 2954 of 2018 before this Commission on grounds that:

“the petitioner has stated that both the fora below have not understood the mental stress and agony suffered by the complainant in the present case. The complainant deserves a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the same. The interest has been allowed only for about three months though the money did not come to the complainant. The opposite party is liable to pay interest till the money is actually received by the complainant. Moreover, the interest awarded by the District Forum is only 9%, whereas, the complainant has demanded interest at the rate 24% per annum”.

On behalf of the respondent no. 1 it was argued that:

“when the booking was cancelled by the respondent No.1, the respondent No.1 had informed the complainant that the booking had been cancelled and the respondent was ready to refund the amount, however, the complainant did not agree to the refund of the amount paid and wanted 24% per annum interest for which there was no justification. The difference between the ex-showroom price and the price quoted by the opposite party No.1 was due to the fact that 2% charge was taken for temporary registration and 6% charge was taken for permanent registration of the vehicle. The complainant wanted that the vehicle should be delivered without any registration which was not possible as the same was against the rules. As the opposite party No.1 was ready to refund the amount right from 26.09.2015, therefore, the District Forum has allowed interest only up to this date. The State Commission has also not found any merit in the appeal and the same has been rejected. In fact, the State Commission has dismissed the application for condonation of delay which was filed for condoning the delay of 250 days in filing the appeal before the State Commission against the order of the District Forum. Thus, in a way, there is concurrent finding of facts by the fora below and this Commission cannot reassess the facts”.

This Commission while disposing the RP had directed that:

“the District Forum has granted the refund of the amount of Rs.57,530/- which was paid by the complainant to the opposite party No.1 along with interest at the rate 9% per annum from 15.06.2015 till 26.09.2015 as the opposite party was ever ready to refund the amount from 26.09.2015 itself. I do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum except that the interest should have been allowed from the date of deposit of the amount.

Based on the above discussion, the order of the District Forum is modified to the extent that the interest on the amount of Rs.57,530/- will be payable from 04.06.2015 instead of 15.06.2015. Beyond this, there is no merit in the revision petition. With this modification the order of the District Forum is upheld.

Review is being sought of a final order in a review petition only to seek an enhancement of the compensation. The order under review has already considered the claim of the petitioner and modified the order to the extent that the interest be paid with effect from 04.06.2015 instead of 15.06.2015. The present claim of the petitioner is for enhancement of compensation awarded to her.

Heard the petitioner in person. The respondent remained unrepresented and was placed ex-parte. A full refund of Rs 57,530/- with interest @ 9% has been ordered in the order under review for the period 04.06.2015 to 26.09.2015. This amount has not been paid to the petitioner as she is claiming enhancement of compensation. The reasons advanced for the same are the physical and mental agony suffered. While this Commission has upheld the order of the District Forum which awarded compensation at the rate of 9% as interest, it is seen that the petitioner has been continually litigating the matter for further enhancement, having prayed for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- before the State Commission and Rs.2,00,000/- before this Commission in RP 2954 of 2018.

I have given thoughtful consideration to the facts on record and the submission of the petitioner. It is seen that the petitioner has been agitating this matter continually out of sense of having been wronged and has not accepted the refund that has been ordered by the District Forum even after the amendment of the period for which interest can be awarded to her by this Commission in RP No.2954 of 2018. While it is notable that the consumer continued to knock on the doors of the various fora for consumer protection under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, it cannot be that compensation beyond what had been sought for in the District Forum be awarded merely on the basis that the petitioner has shown resilience  in pursuing her case.

The orders in the review application are reaffirmed. However, in view of the fact that refund of the money along with interest awarded to the petitioner has not yet been paid so far, the interest awarded @ 9% per annum be paid till the date of payment of the principal and interest. The order be complied with within a period of four weeks.