VIRSA SINGH vs SANGRUR IMPROVEMENT TRUST

THIS appeal by the complainant-consumer is directed against the order dated January 12,1994 of the District Forum, Sangrur in Complaint No. 136/ 1992, partly allowing the same.

THE issue herein lies in a very narrow compass and the relevant facts are not in serious dispute. THE complainants Virsa Singh, Surinder Mohan, Jagjit Singh had filed a complaint before the District Forum, Sangrur alleging therein that they had deposited Rs. 3,000/- each on 25.6.1990 for the purpose of allotment of 100 sq. yds. residential plots at reserved price and that the respondent-Improvement Trust, Sangrur had not alloted the plots to them despite repeated requests. THEy sought direction to the respondent to allot the residential plots to each of them and to pay Rs. 5,000/- as damages or in the alternative to pay interest @ 24% p.a. on the amounts deposited by them on 25.6.1990 till the date of payment. On notice being issued, the respondent controverted the allegations of the complainants. It was pleaded that since dispossession of the site which was to be allotted to the complainants was stayed by the High Court, the allotment of the plots could not be made to them. THE District Forum after perusing the case in detail, held that due to the stay order passed by the High Court in Civil Writ No. 1182 of 1988, the allotment of plots could not be made and therefore, the complainants could not be allowed damages. THE respondent was, however ordered to refund Rs. 3,000/- to each of the complainants within a month from the receipt of the order, failing which they would be entitled to interest @ 12% p.a. on the deposited amount. Feeling dissatisfied, the complainants have come up in appeal. The primal argument of Mr. Sunil Chadha, the learned Counsel for the appellants is that the District Forum has directed the respondent to refund the amount of Rs, 3,000/- each to the complainants but they have not been awarded interest on the amounts deposited by them on 25.6.1990. It is contended that the respondent be directed to pay interest on the amounts deposited by the appellants. Mr. Balbir Singh Wasu the learned Counsel for the respondent stoutly opposed this plea of the appellants. He has contended that the District Forum has no power to grant interest on the amounts deposited by the complainants.

Now the power of the Redressal Agencies to grant interest has been considered recently by the Haryana Commission in The Benz Trading Company, New Delhi & Others v. Modern Car Scan Centre (P) Ltd., Hisar & Others, 1992 C.P.C. 56. This issue has been exhaustively dealt with on principle and precedent in that decision. The twin conclusion arrived at therein is that the Redressal Agencies established under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ''the Act'') are empowerd to grant interest on money wrongfully withheld on the larger ground of equality, justice and good conscience. In the alternative, it has been specifically held that the Redressal Agencies are equally entitled to grant interest in lieu of compensation under Section 14 of the Act as well. We respectfully concur in this view of the Haryana Commission and hold that the Redressal Agencies under the Act have the power to grant interest on the money withheld by the Improvement Trust.

THE only controversy revolves round is the payment of interest on the amount of Rs. 3,000/- deposited by each of the complainants. THE respondent had used the money of the appellants for a long time and they were deprived of its use. THErefore, in our view, the appellants are entitled to interest by way of damages on the amounts deposited by them. It is known that the rate of interest has gone very high. Even the banks have started paying interest @ 12% p.a. on fixed deposits. THErefore, we are of the view that the appellants are entitled to interest @ 12% p.a. and not @ 18% p.a. as claimed by them. For the foregoing reasons, we accept the appeal partly and direct the respondent to pay interest to each of the complainant @ 12% p.a. on the amounts deposited by them from 25.6.1990 till the date of repayment to the appellants. The respondent shall pay costs of this appeal to the appellants, which we assess at Rs. 300/- only. The amounts be paid with interest within two months from the date of this order, failing which compliance would be made under Section 27 of the Act. Appeal partly accepted.