.
BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT
HYDERABAD
F.A.NO. 71,72,143,144,145,146,147,148,303,304,305,306,307,308,537,538,539,540,541,564,565,566,567 and 568 of 2012 against the order of the District Forum, West Godavari District at Eluru in CC Nos. 456,457,273,276,512,75,76,182,88,245,405,406,407,408,401,86,87,400,85,29,102,136,279, and 513 of 2010 respectively on different dates described in the cause title.
F.A.NO. 71 OF 2012 AGAINST C.C.NO.456 OF 2010 DISTRICT FORUM ELURU WEST GODAVARI DIST
Between:
Opp. Polytechnic R.P. Road
………. Appellant/opposite party
AND
th ward, Parimivari Street
Old Town, Tanuku, Tanuku Rural Mandal
………… Respondent/complainant
M/s. Ch. Vasantha Kumar
M/s S.S.Satyarayana
F.A.NO. 72 OF 2012 AGAINST C.C.NO.457 OF 2010 DISTRICT FORUM ELURU WEST GODAVARI DIST
Between:
Opp. Polytechnic R.P. Road
………. Appellant/opposite party
AND
……… Respondent/complainant
M/s. Ch. Vasantha Kumar
M/s S.S.Satyarayana
F.A.NO. 143 OF 2012 AGAINST C.C.NO.273 OF 2010 DISTRICT FORUM ELURU WEST GODAVARI DIST
Between:
………. Appellant/opposite party
AND
……. Respondent/complainant
M/s. Ch. Vasantha Kumar
Mr.P. Durga Prasad
F.A.NO. 144 OF 2012 AGAINST C.C.NO.276 OF 2010 DISTRICT FORUM ELURU WEST GODAVARI DIST
Between:
………. Appellant/opposite party
AND
…… Respondent/complainant
M/s. Ch. Vasantha Kumar
Mr.A. V. Sesha Sai
F.A.NO. 145 OF 2012 AGAINST C.C.NO.512 OF 2010 DISTRICT FORUM ELURU WEST GODAVARI DIST
Between:
………. Appellant/opposite party
AND
China Ramalayam,
…….. Respondent/complainant
M/s. Ch. Vasantha Kumar
PIP
F.A.NO. 146 OF 2012 AGAINST C.C.NO.75 OF 2010 DISTRICT FORUM ELURU WEST GODAVARI DIST
Between:
Opp. Polytechnic R.P. Road
………. Appellant/opposite party
AND
…….. Respondent/complainant
M/s. Ch. Vasantha Kumar
PIP
F.A.NO. 147 OF 2012 AGAINST C.C.NO.76 OF 2010 DISTRICT FORUM ELURU WEST GODAVARI DIST
Between:
………. Appellant/opposite party
AND
Female, aged 67 years,
…….. Respondent/complainant
M/s. Ch. Vasantha Kumar
PIP
F.A.NO. 148 OF 2012 AGAINST C.C.NO.182 OF 2010 DISTRICT FORUM ELURU WEST GODAVARI DIST
Between:
………. Appellant/opposite party
AND
Circus Ground Road,
………. Respondent/complainant
M/s. Ch. Vasantha Kumar
PIP
F.A.NO. 303 OF 2012 AGAINST C.C.NO. 88 OF 2010 DISTRICT FORUM ELURU WEST GODAVARI DIST
Rep.by its Authorized Signatory,
Dr. Mullapudi Harischandra Prasad,
Hindu, Male, 50 years, proprietor,
R/o 12-9-2, Shop No. 3 &4, MIG-12,
Housing Board Colony ,
Tanuku, W.G Dist.
Venkataraya Enterprises,
Sri Kesarapalli Veera Venkata Sathyanarayana
S/o Veerabhadra Rao, H.M 41 years,
R/o 12-9-2, Shop No. 3 &4, MIG-12,
Housing Board Colony ,
Tanuku, W.G Dist. ………. Appellant/opposite party
AND
Nunna Naga Janaki Rambabu
S/o Satyanarayana
H.M. 35 years, D.No.9-16,
Pannaduranga Gudi Street
Velpuru, W.G Dist. ….. Respondent/complainant
2. Nunna Suryanarayana
S/o Veeranna
H.M. 60 years, Cultivation,
D.No.-9-16, Pannaduranga Gudi Street
Velpuru, W.G Dist. ….. Respondent/complainant
M/s. Ch. Vasantha Kumar
Mr.G. Anand Kumar.
F.A.NO. 304 OF 2012 AGAINST C.C.NO. 245 OF 2010 DISTRICT FORUM ELURU WEST GODAVARI DIST
Between:
………. Appellant/opposite party
AND
Kota G.V. Nagalakshmi,
W/o Kalyana Chakrawarthy
Hindu, Female, 26 years, House wife
D-9, Andhra sugars colony,
Venkatarayapuram, Tanuku, W.G Dist.
Kota Venkateswarlu Gupta
S/o Sathyanarayana, Hindu, Male 64 years,
D-9, Andhra sugars colony,
Venkatarayapuram, Tanuku, W.G Dist. .. ..…… Respondent/complainant
M/s. Ch. Vasantha Kumar
PIP
F.A.NO. 305 OF 2012 AGAINST C.C.NO. 405 OF 2010 DISTRICT FORUM ELURU WEST GODAVARI DIST
Between:
Opp. Polytechnic R.P. Road
………. Appellant/opposite party
AND
……… Respondent/complainant
M/s. Ch. Vasantha Kumar
Mr.B.V. Madhava Reddy
F.A.NO. 306 OF 2012 AGAINST C.C.NO. 406 OF 2010 DISTRICT FORUM ELURU WEST GODAVARI DIST
Between:
Opp. Polytechnic R.P. Road
………. Appellant/opposite party
AND
……….. Respondent/complainant
M/s. Ch. Vasantha Kumar
Mr.B.V. Madhava Reddy
F.A.NO. 307 OF 2012 AGAINST C.C.NO. 407 OF 2010 DISTRICT FORUM ELURU WEST GODAVARI DIST
Between:
Opp. Polytechnic R.P. Road
………. Appellant/opposite party
AND
……….. Respondent/complainant
M/s. Ch. Vasantha Kumar
Mr.B.V. Madhava Reddy
F.A.NO. 308 OF 2012 AGAINST C.C.NO. 408 OF 2010 DISTRICT FORUM ELURU WEST GODAVARI DIST
Between:
Opp. Polytechnic R.P. Road
………. Appellant/opposite party
……….. Respondent/complainant
M/s. Ch. Vasantha Kumar
Mr.B.V. Madhava Reddy
F.A.NO. 537 OF 2012 AGAINST C.C.NO. 401 OF 2010 DISTRICT FORUM ELURU
WEST GODAVARI DIST
Between:
Opp. Polytechnic R.P. Road
………. Appellant/opposite party
Mortha Village
………. Respondent/complainant
M/s. Ch. Vasantha Kumar
Mr.R. Chakdradhar
F.A.NO. 538 OF 2012 AGAINST C.C.NO. 86 OF 2010 DISTRICT FORUM ELURU
WEST GODAVARI DIST
Between:
Rep.by its Authorized Signatory,
Dr. Mullapudi Harischandra Prasad,
Hindu, Male, 50 years, proprietor,
R/o 12-9-2, Shop No. 3 &4, MIG-12,
Housing Board Colony ,
Tanuku, W.G Dist.
Venkataraya Enterprises,
Sri Kesarapalli Veera Venkata Sathyanarayana
S/o Veerabhadra Rao, H.M 41 years,
R/o 12-9-2, Shop No. 3 &4, MIG-12,
Housing Board Colony ,
Tanuku, W.G Dist. ………. Appellant/opposite parties
AND
H.M. 60 years, Cultivation,
D.No.-9-16, Pannaduranga Gudi Street
Velpuru, W.G Dist. ….. Respondent/complainant
M/s. Ch. Vasantha Kumar
Mr.G. Anand Kumar.
F.A.NO. 539 OF 2012 AGAINST C.C.NO. 87 OF 2010 DISTRICT FORUM ELURU
WEST GODAVARI DIST
Between:
Rep.by its Authorized Signatory,
Dr. Mullapudi Harischandra Prasad,
Hindu, Male, 50 years, proprietor,
R/o 12-9-2, Shop No. 3 &4, MIG-12,
Housing Board Colony ,
Tanuku, W.G Dist.
Venkataraya Enterprises,
Sri Kesarapalli Veera Venkata Sathyanarayana
S/o Veerabhadra Rao, H.M 41 years,
R/o 12-9-2, Shop No. 3 &4, MIG-12,
Housing Board Colony ,
Tanuku, W.G Dist. ………. Appellant/opposite parties
AND
Nunna Adhi Lakshmi
W/o Suryanarayana
H.M. 55 years, house wife
D.No.-9-16, Pannaduranga Gudi Street
Velpuru, W.G Dist. ….. Respondent/complainant
M/s. Ch. Vasantha Kumar
Mr.G. Anand Kumar.
F.A.NO. 540 OF 2012 AGAINST C.C.NO. 400 OF 2010 DISTRICT FORUM ELURU
WEST GODAVARI DIST
Between:
Opp. Polytechnic R.P. Road
………. Appellant/opposite party
Mortha Village
………. Respondent/complainant
M/s. Ch. Vasantha Kumar
Mr.R. Chakdradhar
F.A.NO. 541 OF 2012 AGAINST C.C.NO. 85 OF 2010 DISTRICT FORUM ELURU
WEST GODAVARI DIST
Between:
Rep.by its Authorized Signatory,
Dr. Mullapudi Harischandra Prasad,
Hindu, Male, 50 years, proprietor,
R/o 12-9-2, Shop No. 3 &4, MIG-12,
Housing Board Colony ,
Tanuku, W.G Dist.
Venkataraya Enterprises,
Sri Kesarapalli Veera Venkata Sathyanarayana
S/o Veerabhadra Rao, H.M 41 years,
R/o 12-9-2, Shop No. 3 &4, MIG-12,
Housing Board Colony ,
Tanuku, W.G Dist. ………. Appellant/opposite parties
AND
1.Nunna Adhi Lakshmi
W/o Suryanarayana
H.M. 55 years, house wife
D.No.-9-16, Pannaduranga Gudi Street,
Velpuru, W.G Dist.
Nunna Suryanarayana
S/o Veeranna
H.M. 60 years, Cultivation,
D.No.-9-16, Pannaduranga Gudi Street,
Velpuru, W.G Dist. ….. Respondent/complainants
M/s. Ch. Vasantha Kumar
Mr.G. Anand Kumar.
F.A.NO. 564 OF 2012 AGAINST C.C.NO. 29 OF 2010 DISTRICT FORUM ELURU
WEST GODAVARI DIST
Between:
Opp. Polytechnic R.P. Road
………. Appellant/opposite party
Kodamanchilli Village
……… Respondent/complainant
M/s. Ch. Vasantha Kumar
Mr.Siva Sankara Rao Borra
F.A.NO. 565 OF 2012 AGAINST C.C.NO. 102 OF 2010 DISTRICT FORUM ELURU
WEST GODAVARI DIST
Between:
………. Appellant/opposite party
AND
……… Respondent/complainant
M/s. Ch. Vasantha Kumar
PIP
F.A.NO. 566 OF 2012 AGAINST C.C.NO. 136 OF 2010 DISTRICT FORUM ELURU
WEST GODAVARI DIST
Between:
………. Appellant/opposite party
AND
…….. Respondent/complainant
M/s. Ch. Vasantha Kumar
PIP
F.A.NO. 567 OF 2012 AGAINST C.C.NO. 279 OF 2010 DISTRICT FORUM ELURU
WEST GODAVARI DIST
Between:
………. Appellant/opposite party
AND
………. Respondent/complainant
M/s. Ch. Vasantha Kumar
PIP
F.A.NO. 568 OF 2012 AGAINST C.C.NO. 513 OF 2010 DISTRICT FORUM ELURU WEST GODAVARI DIST
Between:
………. Appellant/opposite party
AND
China Ramalayam
………. Respondent/complainant
M/s. Ch. Vasantha Kumar
PIP
Quorum: SRI R. LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
AND
SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER
FRIDAY THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND TWELVE
Oral Order (As per Sri T. Ashok Kumar, Hon’ble Member)
1) These appeals are filed by the unsuccessful OP, i.e., M/s Venkatraya Enterprises as against the orders in cc nos. mentioned above on the file of the District Consumer Forum,
West Godavari District Eluru. Since the said complaints were filed by different complainants against one and the same Opposite party and as common facts and law are involved in the matters, we are inclined to dispose of all the appeals by a common order.
F.A. No.71 of 2012 is taken as lead case. For convenience sake the parties as arrayed
In the complaints are referred to hereunder:
2) The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
The complaint deposited four deposits under bond NOs. 533/442, 2409/1143, 5871/11, and 5872/11 for the maturity values of Rs. 16,800/- Rs. 50,000/-, Rs. 80,000/- (Rs.40,000/- and Rs. 40,000/-)with the opposite party Enterprises and their maturity dates were 11.04.2008, 19.08.2007, 04.11.2008 and 04.11.2008, respectively. After the maturity dates, the complainant submitted the original bonds to the opposite party and it has issued receipts bearing No’s.5652,5606 and 6772 acknowledging receipt of original bonds. Inspite of the demands made by the complainant for payment of amounts due under the said bonds, the opposite party on one pretext or the other postponed the same to the complainant. Hence got issued legal notice dated 16.08.2010 to the OP calling upon it to pay the amounts due under the bonds but was returned with endorsement that OP is avoiding to take delivery of the notice. The action of the opposite party aforesaid in not making payments constitute deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and hence the complaint for direction to OP to pay the amounts due under the said bonds together with interest, so also, compensation and cosgs.
3. The opposite party filed the written version denying the allegations made in the complaint and disputing the claim and the gist of the defence is as under:
The opposite party M/s. Venkataraya Enterprises is represented by its proprietor Sri Mullapudi Harischandra Prasad, but in the complaint it is wrongly described as M/s. Venkataraya Enterprises, represented by its Managing Director. The opposite party is a proprietary concern and it was neither registered as company nor as firm and that knowing fully well the same the complainant wrongly described the opposite party in the complaint. The complainant did not deposit any amount as alleged with the OP and no promise was made by it to the complainant to pay the maturity amount with interest as alleged and that the complaint itself is not maintainable under law as the alleged complaint is not a consumer dispute and that the District Forum has to jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and that the complaint is also barred by limitation and thus prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. Both sides filed evidence affidavits reiterating their stand taken in their respective pleadings. Ex.A1 to A4 were marked on behalf of the complainant and no documents were marked on behalf of the OP.
5. Having heard both sides and considering the material on record, the District Forum allowed the complaint directing the opposite party to pay the maturity amounts with interest @9% p.a. from the date of issuance of Bonds till date of realization together with compensation of Rs.5,000/- and costs of Rs.2500/-.
6. Feeling aggrieved with the order of the District Forum, the unsuccessful opposite party has filed the appeal contending that the complaint is barred by limitation and that the District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and that the complainant deposited the amounts with the opposite party to get more interest than being given by the Banks and as such depositing of money in the OP Enterprises amount to commercial transaction and therefore it is not a consumer dispute and the complainant is not a consumer and that he even did not plead that he deposited the amount to eke out his livelihood under self-employment scheme and therefore Consumer Forum did not appreciate the said aspects in a proper manner and arrived at a wrong conclusion in allowing the appeal and thus prayed to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order.
7.Heard both sides with reference to their respective contentions in detail and written arguments filed on behalf of the respondent/complainant.
8.The points for consideration are:
1. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?
2. Whether the complainant deposited the amount with OP by way xxxx Bonds for commercial purpose?
3. to what relief?
9. POINT NO.1 The contention of the complainant is that he deposited money under four bonds vide Nos.533/442, 2409/1143, 5872/11 and 5871/11 for the maturity values of Rs.16,800/-, Rs.50,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.40,000/- and their maturity dates were 11.4.2008, 19.8.2007, 4.11.2008 and 4.11.2008 respectively and that after the maturity dates he demanded the OP to pay the maturity amount and that the OP postponed the same on some pretext or the other. According to the complainant, since he deposited the amounts the cause of action for filing the complaint accrues to him from the date of demand. Saw is that the limitation in regard to the amount deposited commenced from the date of demand by the depositor and refusal thereto by the financier. Article 70 of the Limitation Act provides three years limitation for recovery of deposited amount from the date of refusal after demand. However, Section 24-A of the Consumer protection Act provides two years limitation period to initiate such an action. A combined reading of both the provisions makes it clear that the limitation in the case on hand commences from the date of refusal after demand. Even though the complainant did not mention the actual date of demand for payment due under the said bonds, Ex.A1 to A3 reveal that the complainant had surrendered the original bonds on or after the date of maturity and thereafter the OP did not choose to refuse the payment. As already described supra, the complainant contended that in spite of his repeated requests to pay the amounts due under the said bonds OP Postponed the same on pretext or the other and there is no refusal to pay the amount due under the bonds surrendered vide Ex. A1 to A3. The complainant marked Ex A4 office copy of legal notice dt. 16.8.2010 addressed to OP demanding to any the amount due under the said bonds and Ex.A5 is the envelop sent to the OP containing original of the said notice by registered post acknowledgement but the said notice was returned with the endorsement of the postal personnel that “addressee avoiding to take delivery “ and in such circumstances an inference is drawn that knowing fully well the OP is avoided to take delivary of notice and thus it amounts to ‘service’. Even though the complainant did not specifically mention the date of demand in the complaint, Ex. A1 to A3 reveals that the complainant had surrendered the original bond on or after the date of maturity and thereafter he issued original of Ex. A4 notice and that the same was returned with the endorsement that “addressee avoided to take delivery” and since it amounts to service and OP did not choose to refuse the payment cause of action in this case continues/recurs and thus satisfied to hold that the complaint was filed within limitation. That apart, it is only a deposit and not gratis and therefore unless the amount is repaid cause of action continues. Thus, we are satisfied to hold that the complaint is not barred by limitation and on the other hand it is well within the limitation. Thus point no.1 is decided in favour of the complainant.
10. POINT NO. 2 The contention of the opposite party is that since the complainant deposit the amounts with the opposite party to get more interest than being given by the Banks such depositing of money in the OP Enterprises amounts to commercial transaction and therefore it is not a consumer dispute, the complainant is not a consumer and it is much more so when he did not plead that he deposited the money for eking out his livelihood under self-employment and therefore the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. OP also contended that the complainant deposited the amount for higher rate of interest than the rate of interest being given by the commercial banks. On the other hand, the complainant contended that the depositor of FD is a consumer and that he deposited the amount for getting interest thereon and not profit and therefore certainly the Consumer Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. In support of his contentions OP RELIED UPON the following decisions.
1. Bhai Jaspal Singh and another Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and others, 2010 STPL (WEB),867 SC
2. J.K. Agarwal and another Vs M/s Three C Universal Developers Pvt Ltd., CDJ,2011 (Consumer)
3. Rakesh Kumar Vs Prasavanath Developers Limited and
another 1 (2011) CPJ 224
4. F.A.No. 556 of 2008 dated 14.9.2011 of this Commission
5. F.A.No. 1082 of 2009 dated 13.9.2011 of this Commission
6. F.A.No. 959 of 2008 dated 20.9.2011
7. CCSR 4684 of 2011 dated 25.10.2011
8. CC 248 of 2011 dated 13.11.2011
9. IV 2007 (CPJ) 199 NC
10.CDJ 1995 SC 975, Laxmi Engineering Works Vs PSG
Industrial Institute
11.CDJ 1999 SC 626 Kalpavruksha Charitable Trust Vs
Toshniwal Bros.
12. CDJ 1996 SC 1055 Cheema Engineering Services Vs
Rajan Singh
13. CDJ 2010 SC Birla Technologies Vs Neutral Gas and
XAllied Industries Ltd.,
14. RP No. 3811 of 2007 dated 9.7.2010 between Rajasthan State Development and Industrial Vs M/s.Deekshi Enterprises.
11. In Bhal Jaspal Singh’s decision the Hon’ble Supreme Court had considered the meaning of expression “Investment” for the purpose of notification issued by the State of West Bengal Sales Tax Act and the corresponding rules, the construction and interpretation of an exemption notification etc., The ratio laid in the context has no application to the facts of the case on hand.
12. In J.K. Agarwal case the National Commission dealt with the dispute between builder and purchaser of the flat for commercial space.
13.Rakesh Kumar’s is a case, the shops were purchased in Mall by a practicing Advocate and his wife and therefore it was held that the shops were not booked for earning livelihood of the complainants therein.
14. In F.A.No.556 of 2008 this Commission held that in the absence of any averment as to livelihood under self-employment with regard to a reactor purchased for purpose of hiring it does not come under personal use so as to consider the same as ‘consumer dispute’.
15. IN F.A.No. 1082 of 2009 this Commission held that purchasing of lorry for hiring to third parties is not a consumer dispute.
16. IN F.A.No.959 of 2008 the matter involved was bank guarantee offered by an educational institute.
17. In CCSR 464 Of 2011 it was held that availing of services of purchasing of goods should be exclusively for the purpose of personal use or for the purpose of earning livelihood by means of self-employment.
18. Thus, the facts of the above cases are different from that the facts of the case of hand. In the instant case the deposits were not for the profit but for interest. Therefore, the element of commercial activity is not seen. Therefore, the element of commercial activity is not seen. The sum and substance of the decision reported in II (2012)CPJ 53 (NC) between Kiran Krishna Agro Tech Limited VS P.V. Shanta kumar is that the depositor of FD is a consumer and it supports the case of the complainant. Mere deposit of amount for a higher rate of interest than the rate of interest being given by the commercial bank would not by itself make a platform for the opposite party to contend that the complainant deposited the amount for commercial purpose. The same bank offers different rates of interest to the customers depending upon the nature, period and categories of the depositors. For instance, in S.B. Account the rate of interest offered is lesser when compared to the deposit made for fixed period. Likewise, the amount deposited by a senior citizen would carry higher rate of interest than that of the others. As such, the contention of the opposite party that the complainant has deposited the amount for higher rate of interest itself is not sufficient to hold that commercial element is involved in the transaction.
19. The complainant had deposited the four deposits with the opposite party. The opposite party had issued the fixed deposit bonds promising attractive rate of interest in favour of the complainant, on the date of maturity mentioned therein.
20. The opposite party had invited the deposits from the complainant promising him that it would pay attractive amount on maturity. With the offer extended by the opposite the complainant had deposited his respective amounts with the opposite party and in turn it had issued the fixed deposit receipt assuring him that the amounts as promised would be paid to him on the date of maturity mentioned therein.
21. The opposite party at the first instance denied any investment from the complainant and later he had chosen to dispute the complainant surrounding the original bonds and subsequently, had come with different version that the investment made by the complainant is for commercial purpose. At every stage of the proceedings, the opposite party had made a futile attempt to evade its liability to pay the amount covered under the deposit receipts. An offer to pay the deposit amount with attractive rate of interest and failure to pay the same by the opposite party to the complainant constitutes deficiency I service and unfair trade practice. Hence, the opposite party is liable to pay the maturity amounts to the complainant with a reasonable rate of interest @9% pa form the date of maturity till the date of realization of the amount solely. However, in the circumstances of the case, since the maturity amount is ordered to be paid by the OP to the complainant, together with such rate of interest and also Rs.2,500/- costs of the complaint, the compensation of Rs.5000/- awarded by the District forum is not necessary to be paid and therefore order of the District Forum with regard to payment of compensation is liable to be set aside. Accordingly the order of the District Forum is liable to be modified. Thus points 2 and 3 are answered mostly in favour of the complainant and partly in favour of the OP.
22. As already described supra, since in all others FAs similar facts and law are involved, the same discussion is applicable in the other cases also. However, in some of the FAs of this batch the District Forum awarded interest @14.87%PA, 14%PA and 12%PA on the maturity amount from the date of maturity till the date of complaint and thereafter 9% PA till realization but in the circumstances of the cases it would be just and reasonable to scale down such rate of interest to 9%pa from the date of maturity till the date of realization in all the cases awarding uniform rate of interest. In some of the FAs no compensation is awarded and rate of interest awarded is only 9% from the date of maturity and such appeals are liable to be dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum. In some matters, though compensation not awarded interest rate is higher than 9%pa and in such matters orders are liable to be modified suitable scaling down the rate of interest.
23. In the result: the appeals in FA.No.71,72,143,144,145,146,147,148,303,305,306,307,308,
537,538,539,540,541,564,565,566 and 568 of 2012 are allowed modifying the orders of the District Forum, West Godavari District at Eluru in CC Nos. 456,457,273,276,512,75,76,182,88,405,406,407,408,401,86,87,400,85,29,102,136 and 513 of 2010 respectively. The opposite party/parties is/are directed to pay the maturity amounts due under the Bond(s) with interest @ 9% per annum to the respective complainant(s) from the date(s) of maturity till date of realization. Costs awarded in the impugned orders maintained as it is. However, the compensation awarded by the District Forum in the impugned order is set aside so also excessive rate of interest than 9% pa from the date of maturity till date of realization on the maturity amount(s). There shall be no order as to the costs in these appeals. Time for compliance four weeks.
24. FA 304/2012 and FA 567/2012 are dismissed confirming the orders of the District Forum in CC 245/2010 and CC279/2010. No order as to costs of the said two appeals. Time for compliance four weeks.
Member Member
Dt.17.8.2012
