AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 30.03.2013 passed by the by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission"), whereby the Appeal preferred by the Complainant/ Respondent herein has been allowed in part and the order passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thiruvananthapuram (hereinafter referred to as "the District Forum") has been modified in part and the direction was given to the Petitioner herein to pay a sum of 53,761/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing of the Complaint i.e. 12.12.2002 along with cost of 10,000/- to the Complainants and also the cost of 2,000/- as the cost of proceedings of the Appeal to the Complainant.
We have heard Mr. Mahesh N.G., learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the impugned order passed by the State Commission.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the Petitioner did not challenge the order passed by the District Forum and had paid the entire amount as per the order of the State Commission sometimes in the year 2018. However, he has submitted that the rate of interest @ 18% p.a. is excessive and required to be modified.
From the impugned order passed by the State Commission, we find that the State Commission had not given any reasons as to why interest @ 18% p.a. is being awarded as against the 8% awarded by the District Forum.
The Complaint was filed in the year 2002, before the District Forum and the dispute raised in the Complaint was that the construction made by the Petitioner herein was not up to the mark and inferior quality material for construction was used. Be that as it may, even in the year 2002, when the Complaint was filed the rate of interest being given by the banks on fixed deposit was not as high as 18% p.a. It would have been only about 12% p.a.
From the record, we find that it is not the case of the Complainant/ Respondent herein that he had taken loan from anywhere for spending the amount towards construction of the extension work of the residential house and therefore, we modify the rate of interest awarded by the State Commission from 18% p.a. to 12% p.a.
Mr. Shyam Padman, learned Counsel for the Complainant/ Respondent herein submitted that the Complainant/ Respondent herein is a senior citizen aged about 85 years as of now and had been hospitalized. The amount deposited by the Petitioner has been withdrawn and used for medical expenses and therefore the Complainant/ Respondent herein cannot be directed to refund the excess amount. The request appears to be bonafide, we therefore hold that the Complainant/ Respondent shall not be liable to refund the amount which he had already withdrawn.
The Revision Petition stands disposed of.