AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated27-07-2011 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') whereby the Appeal preferred by the Complainant/Respondent herein has been allowed and the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum - I, UT Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the District Forum') has been set aside and the Petitioner herein has been directed to pay Rs.1,05,150/- to the Complainant/Respondent with interest @9% p.a. from 20-01-2010, when the cheque in the sum of Rs.1,83,000/- was issued in his favour, along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and costs quantified at Rs.15,000/-. The Petitioner herein has been further directed to comply with the above directions within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order failing which the amount of Rs.1,05,150/- shall carry penal interest @12% p.a. from 20-01-2010 till realization besides costs.
We have heard Mr. Satish Jain, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Pankaj Chandgothia, Learned Counsel appearing for the Complainant/Respondent and have perused the order dated 27-07-2011 passed by the State Commission.
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Complainant/Respondent has given his consent on 09-12-2009 and that consent was acted upon by the Petitioner by sending the Cheque dated 20-01-2010 for Rs.1,83,000/- which was the amount for which the Complainant/Respondent has given this consent and the Cheque has also been encashed, therefore, the Complainant/Respondent ceases to be a consumer.
This submission is wholly misconceived. It is not in dispute that the Complainant/Respondent has given the consent on 09-12-2009, but before it could be acted upon by the parties, the Complainant/Respondent vide notice dated 11-01-2010 informed the Petitioner herein regarding withdrawal of his consent on the ground that the same has been given under coercion. The receipt of notice dated 11-01-2010 has been admitted by the Petitioner in paragraph 9 of the written version filed before the District Forum. The payment of Rs.1,83,000/- to the Complainant/Respondent herein has been made vide Cheque No.951751 dated 28-01-2010 which was sent by registered post. That means that the payment was sent after receiving the legal notice dated 11-01-2010 wherein the consent was withdrawn. The amount of Rs.1,83,000/- was deposited by the Complainant/Respondent under protest for which no action was taken by the Petitioner herein. Thus, the Petitioner cannot rely on the basis of the consent given by the Complainant/Respondent on 09-12-2009 as it was withdrawn on 11-01-2010 and the payment of the amount of Rs.1,83,000/- was made on 20-01-2010 which was subsequent to the receipt of the withdrawal of the consent. We, therefore, do not find force in this submission made by the Petitioner that the Complainant/Respondent was not entitled to withdraw the consent given by him earlier. That being the position, we are of the considered opinion that the State Commission has decided the matter in accordance with law after appreciating the evidence and material placed on record and the findings recorded by the State Commission does not suffer from any illegality or perversity which may warrant interference in exercise of our revisional jurisdiction.
The Revision Petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed.