PER MR PREM NARAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER

The petitioner here is the original complainant who has filed this revision petition challenging the order dated 27.07.2018 passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in first appeal No. 333 of 2018. The complainant had booked a scooter with the respondent opposite party by paying Rs.1000/- on 30.05.2015 and an amount of Rs.56,530/- was paid by the complainant to the Executive of the opposite party on 04.06.2015. However, the complainant later came to know that the ex-showroom price was lower than what the opposite party was charging. The complainant then requested for refund of the amount from the opposite party. The complainant received a registered post from the opposite party stating that the booking of the vehicle has been cancelled and the OP is ready to refund the amount received from the complainant. The complainant sent an email to the opposite party to refund the amount along with 24% per annum interest but the opposite party did not pay the demanded interest. The complainant then preferred a consumer complaint before the District Forum being CC No. 574 of 2015 demanding the refund of the paid amount of Rs.57,530/- along with interest at the rate 24% per annum. The matter was contested by the opposite party. The District Forum allowed the complaint vide it's order dated 30.06.2017 and directed the opposite party to pay Rs.57,530/- along with 9% interest from 15.06.2015 to 26.09.2015 along with cost of Rs.2000/-.

2.     Aggrieved  by the order of the District Forum, the complainant approached the State Commission by way of appeal being first appeal No.333 of 2018 and the State Commission dismissed the application for condonation of delay and the appeal was also rejected vide State Commission’s order dated 27.07.2018.

3.     Hence, the present revision petition by the complainant.

4.     Heard the petitioner who is present in person and the learned counsel for the respondents. 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.

5.     On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 stated 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.

6.     I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by both the sides and have examined the record. The present revision petition has been filed by the complainant for enhancement of the compensation. It is seen 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.