NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/1067/2010

INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE - Complainant(s)

Versus

P.R. RAGHU - Opp.Party(s)

MR. V. SRIDHAR REDDY

30 Mar 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 1067 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 19/11/2009 in Appeal No. 537/2008 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
1. INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCEThe Director, Institute of Medical Sceince, Arogyavaram, MadanpalleChittorAndhra Pradesh ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. P.R. RAGHUR/o. D.No. B-313, Bhel TownshipRanipetTamil Nadu ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. ANUPAM DASGUPTA ,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner :NEMO
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 30 Mar 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

Challenge in these revision petitions is to the common order dated 19.11.09 passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (in short, ‘the State Commission’), Circuit Bench at Tirupati in First Appeals No. 537 & 538/08. By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the appeals filed by the petitioner herein against the orders passed by the Chittoor District Forum by which the complaints filed by the complainants/respondents were allowed and the Petitioner was directed to pay the interest @ 18% p.a. on the amounts deposited by the complainants from the date of deposits till the amounts were refunded to the complainant. The State Commission also awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.1,000/- as cost of the proceedings. We have heard Mr. Sunder Khatri, learned counsel for the petitioner and have considered his submissions. Learned counsel would assail the impugned order primarily on the ground that the relief granted by the fora below to the complainant is excessive and is operating harshly upon the petitioner institution. He submits that the ..3.. amounts were refunded to the complainants promptly within four months on their making such a request and, therefore, no interest should have been levied on the said amounts. In any case he submits that the rate of interest so awarded by the State Commission is on higher side. We have given our thoughtful consideration to his submissions but having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case which would put the petitioner in poor light about their dealings with the prospective students and the kind of mental torture, harassment and set back to the career that the prospective students would suffer on account of such an unfair practice, we are of the view that the award of compensation in the shape of interest @ 18% p.a., for the period the amounts remained with the petitioner institution is by no means excessive. However, we would clarify that the interest so awarded by the District Forum and affirmed by the State Commission shall be payable only from the respective dates of deposit to the corresponding dates of refund only. With these observations, the revision petitions stand disposed of. The ..4.. amount of Rs.2,000/- awarded by the State Commission shall be treated as cost of the proceedings along with cost of Rs.1,000/- awarded by it.



......................ANUPAM DASGUPTAPRESIDING MEMBER