Complainant is present.
O.P. is present through advocate.
The case was posted today for passing necessary order upon the petition No.391/24 as well as of eligibility of the complainant in getting the additional amount as interest.
The present case according to the complainant is that the total amount including interest payable to her by the O.P. till November, 2017 as computed by the complainant is ₹10,58,890/-. The O.P. , National Insurance Company Ltd. has issued a cheque of ₹ 8,47,934 which was credited to the bank A/c of the complainant on 03.11.2017 and as such an amount of ₹2,20,956 is still due by the O.P. to the complainant. The complainant prayed to direct the O.P. to pay ₹2,20,956 to the complainant failing which O.P. may be directed to pay an interest @ 7% per month w.e.f. December, 2017. On 29.01.2018, as directed by the Commission, the O.P. appeared and submitted computation sheet and voucher of deduction of TDS made by them and submitted that after deduction of tax the amount of tax was deposited to Income Tax Deptt. which was subject to refund on claim by the complainant. The O.P. computed the amount as below :-
Awarded amount ₹5,00,000.00
Add. Interest @ 7% w.e.f. 13.10.2006 to 21.08.2017
Total 3962 days ₹3,79,918.00
TOTAL - ₹8,79,918.00
Add. Judgement for mental harassment ₹ 40,000.00
Add. Cost of file ₹ 4,000.00
TOTAL ₹9,23,918.00
(Rupees nine lakh twenty three thousand nine hundred eighteen)only.
It is seen from the voucher for TDS deduction submitted by the O.P. that an amount of ₹75,984/- was deducted as TDS and deposited with the A/c of Income Tax Deptt.
From the above discussion it is seen that in between the calculation of interest computed by the complainant and O.P. there is a difference of ₹2,10,956/-(excluding the amount of cost).
This Commission vide order dated 14.03.2022 directed the O.P. to pay to the complainant an amount of ₹2,20.956/- without any interest thereon. Further in failure to comply with the order the O.P. was made liable to pay interest @ 7% per annum on ₹2,20,956/- from this date till realizing the same.
On 07.09.2022 the O.P. appeared and filed petition No.182/22 for reviewing the order of this Commission dated 14.03.2022. On the next date fixed for hearing of petition No.182/22 the complainant had filed petition No.213/22 praying to file written objection against the petition No.182/22 filed by the O.P. Vide order dated 30.12.2022 the Commission directed the complainant to file details regarding calculation of interest and basis thereof. But after repeated directions the complainant had not submitted any details and basis of calculating interest till 01.11.2023. On 13.12.2023 the complainant submitted the calculation of interest and basis thereof vide petition No.l200/2023. The O.P. submitted written objection regarding calculation of interest and details thereof submitted by the complainant through their petition No.05/2024. On 18.03.2024 Ld. Advocate for the complainant has filed a petition bearing petition No.39/2024 stating that due to oversight and/or inadvertently and/or mistake, the calculated amount was wrongly typed in para-6, line No.1 as ₹2,20,956/- instead of ₹71,216. The said mistake, according to him was a typographical error and it was not intentional but circumstantial and it was bonafide. Ld. Advocate has prayed to pass necessary order for correction of calculated amount in para-6, line No.1 as ₹2,20,956/- instead of ₹71,216.
The copy of that petition was received by Ld. Advocate for the O.P. The Commission found it difficult to understand what the complainant is going to explain. In the body of the petition he has written as “due to oversight and/or inadvertently and/or mistake, the calculated amount was wrongly typed in para-6 line No.1 as ₹2,20,956/- instead of ₹71,216”. But in prayer part he has prayed to pass necessary order for correction of the calculated amount in para-6 line No.1 as ₹2,20,956 instead of ₹71,216. Therefrom the case was pending for passing necessary order till today.
We have gone through previous orders and found that the complainant as claimed by the O.P. has grossly miscalculated the interest by adding compounding interest @ 7% instead of simple interest @7%. It is also worth mentioning that the complainant submitted details of calculation of interest and basis thereof on 13.12.2023 after a gap of almost 15 months from the date of their petition dated 07.09.2022 filed by the opposite party. Furthermore it is seen that the complainant has calculated the interest up to the date of deposit in her A/c instead of the date of payment of ₹8,47,934/- made by the O.P. and she is silent on the point of TDS amount of ₹75,984/- which was proved by the documents submitted by the O.P.
Before summing up the discussion it should be mentioned that in absence of any specification regarding calculating interest, whether simple or compound it is a settled law that the interest should be simple and not compound. It may be presumed that the complainant was not aware of the TDS deduction of ₹75,984/-. From the voucher submitted by the O.P. it is seen that the amount of ₹75,984/- was deducted as TDS and deposited with the A/c of Income Tax Deptt. Which was subject to refund on claim by the complainant.
We found it difficult even today also why the complainant in her petition No.39/24 has once again stated that the calculated amount should be ₹2,20,956/- instead of ₹71,216/-.
We believe that the confusion has taken place for not taking into account the amount deducted as TDS which amounts to ₹75,984/-.
From all above observations and discussions, we found no merit in awarding the calculated amount of interest of ₹2,20,956/- or ₹71,216 as claimed by the complainant. Finally reviewing our previous order dated 14.03.2023 the prayer of the petition No.659/17 is dismissed. The O.P. is released from any/or all the liabilities in this regard.
Send copy of this order to both the parties free of cost.
