PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER

         Mrs. Ravinder Kaur Bakshi is the complainant in this case.  She owns House No. B-447 in Safdarjung  Enclave, New Delhi, but resides in Chandigarh.  She paid property tax amounting to Rs. 40,760/- for the year 2005-06, through a cheque to the MCD Authorities/opposite parties on 20.08.2005 drawn on Corporation Bank and obtained a receipt from the opposite parties.  The cheque was presented in the Branch of Corporation Bank situated at Delhi.  However, the cheque was issued from the Chandigarh Branch.  The Delhi Branch refused to encash the same on the ground that it was not payable by the Branch at Delhi.  The first deficiency on the part of the opposite parties is that they did not send back the cheque to the Chandigarh Branch nor gave any information to the complainant.  The cheque was withheld for the reasons known to the opposite parties.

2.      On 28.05.2007, the complainant went to pay the property tax for the next year 2006-07.  The complainant was informed that her balance amount was pending.  She was asked to clear arrears of tax for the year 2006-07.  The complainant had to pay Rs. 60,000/- in place of Rs. 40,760/- for the year 2005-06 to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi.

3.      Aggrieved by the action taken by the opposite parties, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum for recovery of Rs. 19,738/- along with interest .  Before the District Forum, the opposite parties did not file the written statement and they were proceeded against ex-parte.  The District Forum allowed the complaint and ordered that a sum of Rs. 19,738/- along with interest be refunded, which was charged in excess and a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was granted as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation charges to the complainant.

4.      The complainant was not satisfied and she preferred an appeal.  She requested that interest @ 18% should be awarded.  The State Commission dismissed the appeal.

5.      We have heard Lt. Col. T.S. Bakshi retired, Attorney of the complainant and Ms. Ashna Bhalla, Advocate.  Counsel for the respondent has cited an authority reported in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269, which mentions:

          “Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21(b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside.  In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two forums.  The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts.  This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked.  In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act has been transgressed.  It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of the two fora.”

6.      Counsel for the respondent submits that interest @ 18% cannot be granted and the complainant has been adequately awarded the compensation.

7.      The record reveals that the complainant/her attorney had attended the Court hearing for eighteen times before the foras below and appeared four times in this Commission.   During the last time on 07.12.2012, the counsel or the respondent did not appear and therefore the case was adjourned, subject to payment of Rs. 5,000/- as costs, meaning thereby, that one adjournment costs Rs. 5,000/-.   He has attended the case for 22 hearings for no fault of his.  The opposite parties committed deficiency in withholding her cheque.  They should have informed her immediately that they could not get the cheque encashed or the cheque should have been sent back.  For this deficiency, the compensation of Rs. 5,000/- appears to be inadequate.  However, the complainant has got another Rs. 5,000/- today. It may also be mentioned here that the complainant, too, was also wee bit negligent.  She had issued a cheque, she should had seen whether the cheque had been encashed or not, through her pass book and if it was not encashed, further enquiry should have been made. 

8.      However, keeping in view all the facts and circumstances, we allow this revision petition to the extent that the opposite parties will pay further sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation within 45 days through demand draft at the address of the complainant, otherwise this will carry interest @ 9% per annum till its realization.  It is also further ordered that the respondent will return Rs. 19,738/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the day it was recovered till the day it was retained.  Interest on the excess amount be paid within 45 days.  If not paid within 45 days it shall further carry interest @ 9% per annum till its realization.