KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO.360/2003JUDGMENT DATED: 15.09.2007Appeal filed against the order passed by the CDRF, Kozhikode in OP.No.525/2001
PRESENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
Rethy Gangadharan, G6, Arathi, :Appellant Opposite Nallalam Sub Station, Calicut - 673 027. (By Adv.shya Padman ) Vs. Industiral Development Bank of India, :Respondent Panampilly Nagar, P.B.No.4253, Kochi – 682 036. (By Adv.M.Nizamudeen)
SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
The above appeal is preferred from the order dated 21.10.02 passed by the CDRF, Kozhikode in OP.No.525/01. The complaint in OP.525/01 was preferred by the appellant as complainant against the respondent as Opposite party claiming compensation on the ground deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in not paying the interest at the rate 18% on the principal amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from 13.4.2000 till 17.10.01. The lower forum dismissed the aforesaid complaint on the ground that the claim for interest at 18% is unsustainable and that the complainant is only entitled to get 7% interest which the opposite party had already paid on 17.10.01. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order passé by the lower forum present appeal is preferred by the complainant therein. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant and respondent/opposite party. The learned counsel for the appellant argued the appeal on the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum. He also pointed out the delay committed by the opposite party in paying the amount which was invested by the complainant’s husband with the opposite party on 30.4.95 with the agreed rate of interest at 18% per annum. He also relied on the communications effected in between the complainant and the opposite party. Thus, the appellant requested for allowing the complaint in OP.525/01. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order passed by the lower forum. It is pointed that there occurred delay on the part of the complainant in producing the power of attorney executed by the legal heirs of deceased A.K.Gangadaran, to get the amount which was invested by late A.K.Gangadaran. Thus, the respondent herein requested for dismissal of the present appeal. 3. The points that arise for consideration are:- 1) Whether the claim of interest at the rate of 18% from 13.4.2000 till the date of payment ie.17.10.2001 can be accepted? 2) Whether the lower forum can be justified in not ordering interest at the rate of 18% from 13.4.2000 till 17.10.2001 on the principal amount of Rs.5,00,000/-? 3) Is there any sustainable ground to interefere with the impugned order passed by the lower forum in OP.525/2001? 4. Points 1 to 3:- There is no dispute regarding the facts of the case. Admittedly complainant’s husband Sri.A.K.Gangadaran invested a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-with the opposite party on 13.4.95 for a period of 5 years. The rate of interest agreed upon was 18%. The aforesaid amount matured on 13.4.2000. By that time the original investor Sri.A.K.Gangadaran had expired on 8.12.98. The complainant approached the opposite party as nominee and one of the legal heirs of deceased Sri.A.K.Gangadaran, to get the amount due as per the investment bond. It is also an admitted fact that the complainant had produced the succession certificate and other necessary documents to get the amount due to late Sri.A.K.Gangadaran. It is true that the deceased A.K.Gangadaran has other 4 legal heirs also, children namely A.G.Rani, A.G.Mini, A.G.Vini and A.G.Unniraj. The complainant produced the power of attorney executed by her 3 children in favour of the complainant for receiving the amount on their behalf. The other legal heir was available in the station. The aforesaid power of attorney in favour of the complainant was produced on 28.10.2000. But even after producing the power of attorney, opposite party failed to make payment of the amount due to the legal heirs of late A.K.Gangadaran. But they could effect the payment only on 17.10.01. No reasonable explanation is offered from the side of the opposite party for causing so much delay in making payment. Eventhough the opposite party has denied acceptance of the power of attorney, but the opposite party failed to substantiate the aforesaid contention raised in the version. On the otherhand, the complainant has established her case by filing the proof affidavit and documents which are marked as Ext.A1 to A5. Another important aspect to be noted at this juncture is the appointment of the complainant as the nominee by the depositor. So, there was no hindrance on the part of the opposite party in making payment to the complainant as nominee of the depositor late A.K.Gangadaran. Thus, in all respects there occurred deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party on account of their failure to make the payment in time. If that be so, the opposite party was liable to pay the very same rate of interest on the principal amount till date of payment ie. Upto 17.10.01. The lower forum has not considered the relevant aspect regarding the delay caused in making payment by the opposite party. The lower forum has also not considered deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in causing delay in making payment to the complainant. Ext.A1 to A5 documents produced from the side of the complainant would make it abundantly clear that the complainant was insisting the opposite party to get the amount disbursed. Evenafter the aforesaid repeated requests made by the complainant, the opposite party without any sufficient reason caused much delay in making the payment. So we are of the view that the lower forum has gone wrong in not awarding interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. The opposite party has committed deficiency in service by not paying interest at the rate of 18% per annum. There also occurred deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in delaying the payment from 13.4.2000 till 17.10.01. Thus, in all respects the impugned order passed by the lower forum is liable to be setaside. Hence we do so.
In the result the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 21.10.02 by the lower forum in OP.525/01 is setaside. The complaint in OP.525/01 is allowed to the extent as indicated above. The aforesaid interest amount due to the complainant can only be treated as the amount due on 17.10.2001 and so the said amount will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 17.10.01 till date of payment. The appellant/complainant is also entitled to get cost of Rs.1000/-. The time for effecting aforesaid payment is fixed as 2 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN: MEMBER
SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER | 
