Per K.V.Krishna Murthy:   

            Mounsh, 22 years old business man had gone to Vikas Diagnostic Centre, at Gangavathi town for diagnosis of his blood on a reference made by Dr.Zuber Ahamad, M.B.B.S. M.S Gangavathi.  The report is at Ex.A.1, which given the following picture about the diagnosis.

            Bio-Chemistry

• R.B.S                    : 100 mg% (N.R : 80-150 mg%)
• Blood Urea                   :  23 mg% (N.R : 10-50 mg%)
• S. Creatinine       :  1.0 mg% (N.R : 0.5 -1.4 mg%)

SEROLOGY

HBs Ag Test                 :         Negative

IDV Antibodies          :         POSITIVE

            On seeing the report indicating the HIV Positive, the complainant suffered great mental grief.  On the day after the next day on 13-03-2014, the complainant approached Integrated Counselling and Testing Center at Gangavathi.  The result of HIV Antibodies Test was Negative as per Ex.A.2 report.  On the same day, Dr. Satish Raikar, MBBS MD (Med) DNB (Med) referred the complainant to another diagnostic center – Chandrashekharswami Diagnostic Centre, Yashodha Hospital, at Gangavathi town.  The complainant’s blood tested at 2.30 pm in the said diagnostic centre, wherein the Serology Report indicating Negative.

            2.  A news item in the daily Kannada news paper by name “Prajavani” appeared in the issue dated: 11-5-2014, which reads as follows;

“ಜ್ವರದಿಂದ ಬಳಲುತ್ತಿದ್ದ ಯುವಕನೊಬ್ಬ ಖಾಸಗಿ ಲ್ಯಾಬ್‍ನಲ್ಲಿ ರಕ್ತ ತಪಾಸಣೆ ಮಾಡಿಸಿದಾಗ ನೀಡಿದ ‘ಎಚ್‍ಐವಿ ಪಾಸಿಟಿವ್’ ಎಂಬ ವರದಿ ನೋಡಿ ಮಾನಸಿಕ ಖನ್ನತೆಗೆ ಒಳಗಾದ ಘಟನೆ ನಗರದಲ್ಲಿ ಈಚೆಗೆ ನಡೆದಿದೆ.
ಪ್ರಕರಣ ಮುಚ್ಚಿಹಾಕಲು ಕಾಂಗ್ರೆಸ್ ಮುಖಂಡರೊಬ್ಬರ ಆಪ್ತ ಪೊಲೀಸರ ಮೇಲೆ ಒತ್ತಡ ಹೇರಿದ್ದಾರೆ.  ಪರಿಣಾಮ ಪ್ರಕರಣ ನಡೆದು 40 ದಿನವಾದರೂ ದೂರು ದಾಖಲಾಗಿಲ್ಲ.  ಪೊಲೀಸರು ತನಿಖೆಗೆ ಹಿಂದೇಟು ಹಾಕಿದ್ದಾರೆ’ ಎಂದು ಯುವಕನ ಕುಟುಂಬದವರು ಆರೋಪಿಸಿದ್ದಾರೆ.

ಘಟನೆಯ ವಿವರ: ಅಂಬೇಡ್ಕರ್ ನಗರದ ನಿವಾಸಿ ಮೌನೇಶ ಮಲ್ಲಪ್ಪ ಎಂಬಾದ ಹಲವು ದಿನದಿಂದ ಅನಾರೋಗ್ಯಕ್ಕೆ ಒಳಗಾಗಿದ್ದ, ಚಿಕಿತ್ಸೆಗಾಗಿ ನಗರದ ಸರ್ಕಾರಿ ಆಸ್ಪತ್ರೆಗೆ ಭೇಟಿ ನೀಡಿದಾರ ವೈದ್ಯ ಜುಬೇರ್ ಅಹಮ್ಮದ್ ಅವರು ರಕ್ತ ತಪಾಸಣೆಗೆ ಶೀಫಾರಸು ಮಾಡಿದ್ದರು.  ಸರ್ಕಾರಿ ಆಸ್ಪತ್ರೆಯ ಪ್ರಯೋಗಾಲಯದ ಸಿಬ್ಬಂದಿ ಲಭ್ಯವಿರದ ಕಾರಣ ತಕ್ಷಣಕ್ಕೆ ನಗರದ ‘ವಿಕಾಸ ಡಯಾಗ್ನೋಸ್ಟಿಕ್’ ಎಂಬ ಖಾಸಗಿ ರಕ್ತ ತಪಾಸಣಾ ಕೇಂದ್ರಕ್ಕೆ ಭೇಟಿ ನೀಡಿ ರಕ್ತದ ಮಾದರಿ ನೀಡಿದ್ದಾರೆ.
ಬೆಚ್ಚಿ ಬಿದ್ದ ಯುವಕ: ಕೇಂದ್ರ ನೀಡಿದ ವರದಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ‘ಎಚ್‍ಐವಿ ಪಾಸಿಟಿವ್’ ಎಂದು ನಮೂದಿಸಲಾಗಿತ್ತು.  ವರದಿ ನೋಡಿ ತಕ್ಷಣಕ್ಕೆ ಕುಸಿದ ಯುವಕ ಆಘಾತಕ್ಕೊಳಗಾದರು.  ಕುಟುಂಬ ಸದಸ್ಯರು ಹಾಗೂ ಸ್ನೇಹಿತ ಮಂಜುನಾಥ ಅವರು ಯುವಕನಿಗೆ ಸಮಾಧಾನ ಹೇಳಿ ಮನೆಗೆ ಕರೆದೊಯ್ದರು.  

‘ವರದಿಯಿಂದ ಆಘಾತಕ್ಕೆ ಒಳಗಾದ ಯುವಕ ಪತ್ರ ಬರೆದಿಟ್ಟು ಆತ್ಮಹತ್ಯೆಗೆ ಮುಂದಾಗಿದ್ದ.  ಸ್ನೇಹಿತರ ಮನವೊಲಿಕೆಯಿಂದ ಮತ್ತೊಂದು ಬಾರಿ ಖಾಸಗಿ ರಕ್ತ ಪರೀಕ್ಷಾ ಕೇಂದ್ರ ಹಾಗೂ ಸರ್ಕಾರಿ ಆಸ್ಪತ್ರೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ರಕ್ತದ ಮಾದರಿ ನೀಡಿದಾಗ ‘ಎಚ್‍ಐವಿ ನೆಗೆಟಿವ್’ ಎಂಬ ವರದಿ ಬಂದಿದೆ.  ಇದರಿಂದ ಅನುಮಾನಗೊಂಡ ಯುವಕನ ಕುಟುಂಬದವರು ವಿಕಾಸ ರಕ್ತ ಪರೀಕ್ಷಾ ಕೇಂದ್ರಕ್ಕೆ ಭೇಟಿ ನೀಡಿ ವರದಿ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ವಿಚಾರಿಸಿದಾಗ ಅಲ್ಲಿನ ಸಿಬ್ಬಂದಿ ಬೇಜವಾಬ್ದಾರಿಯಿಂದ ವರ್ತಿಸಿದರು’ ಎಂದು ಯುವಕ ಮೌನೇಶ ಮತ್ತು ಮಂಜುನಾಥ ಆರೋಪಿಸಿದ್ದಾರೆ.

‘ಖಿನ್ನತೆಗೆ ಒಳಗಾದ ಯುವಕ ನಕಲಿ ವರದಿ ನೀಡಿದ ರಕ್ತ ಪರೀಕ್ಷಾ ಕೇಂದ್ರ ವಿರುದ್ಧ ಕ್ರಮ ಕೈಗೊಳ್ಳುವಂತೆ ಜಿಲ್ಲಾ ಆರೋಗ್ಯಾಧಿಕಾರಿ ಮತ್ತು ಪೊಲೀಸ್ ವರಿಷ್ಠಾಧಿಕಾರಿಗೆ ದೂರು ನೀಡಿದ್ದಾನೆ.  ಆದರೂ ಈವರೆಗೆ ಕ್ರಮಕೈಗೊಂಡಿಲ್ಲ’ ಎಂದು ದೂರಿದ್ದಾರೆ.”

            3.  The above news item discloses that a complaint was lodged to the District Health Officer as well as to the Superintend of Police, Koppal.  The result of the enquiry or investigation is not made known to this Forum.

            4.  In the complaint under consideration, the complainant stated as follows;

2. ಫಿರ್ಯಾದಿದಾರನು ಎದುರುದಾರನ ಲ್ಯಾಬಿನಲ್ಲಿ ರಕ್ತ ಪರೀಕ್ಷೆಗೆಂದು ದಿನಾಂಕ: 11-3-2014 ರಂದು ಹೋಗಿದ್ದು, ಮತ್ತು ಎದರುದಾರನು ಫಿಯಾದಿದಾರನ ರಕ್ತವನ್ನು ಪಡೆದು ಅದರ ವರದಿಯನ್ನು ನೀಡಿರುತ್ತಾನೆ.  ಎದುರುದಾರನು ಸದರಿ ರಕ್ತ ಪರೀಕ್ಷೆಗೆ ನಿಗದಿತ ಫೀಯನ್ನು ಫಿರ್ಯಾದಿದಾರನಿಂದ ಪಡೆದಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ.  ಆದರೆ ಸದರಿ ರಕ್ತದ ಪರೀಕ್ಷೆಯ ವರದಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಈ ರೀತಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ತೋರಿಸಲಾಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ.

            SEROLOGY

HBs Ag Test              :           Negative

IDV Antibodies                   :           POSITIVE

ಫಿರ್ಯಾದಿರಾನಿಗೆ ಸದರಿ ರಕ್ತದ ಪರೀಕ್ಷೆಯ ವರದಿಯನ್ನು ನೋಡಿ ಆಘಾತಕ್ಕೆ ಒಳಗಾದನು.  ಕಾರಣ ಸದರಿ ರಕ್ತದ ಪರೀಕ್ಷೆಯ ವರದಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಆಯ್.ಡಿ.ವಿ. ಪೋಸಿಟಿವ್ (ಎಚ್.ಐ.ವಿ) ಎಂದು ಇರುವುದನ್ನು ಮನಗಂಡು ಆತನು ಮಾನಸಿಕವಾಗಿ ಹಾಗೂ ದೈಹಿಕವಾಗಿ ಆಘಾತಕ್ಕೆ ಒಳಗಾದನು.  ಆಗ ಆ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಆತನೊಮದಿಗೆ ಆತನ ಪರಿಚಯಸ್ಥರು ಮತ್ತು ಆತನ ಸಂಬಂಧಿಕರು ಜೊತೆಗೆ ಇದ್ದರು.  ಇದರಿಂದ ಆತನಿಗೆ ಬಹಳ ಮುಜುಗರವಾಯಿತು.  ಮತ್ತು ಸದರಿ ವಿಷಯವು ಕಾಳ್ಗಿಚ್ಚಿನಂತೆ ಎಲ್ಲಡೆ ಹಬ್ಬಿ ಹೋಯಿತು.  ಇದರಿಂದ ಫಿರ್ಯಾದಿದಾರನು ಮರ್ಯಾದೆಗೆ ಮತ್ತು ಘನತೆಗೆ ತುಂಬಾ ದಕ್ಕೆ ಬಂದಾಂತಾಯಿತು.  ಮತ್ತು ಫಿರ್ಯಾದಿದಾರನನ್ನು ಆ ದಿನದಿಂದಲೇ ಆತನ ಸ್ನೇಹಿತರು ಮತ್ತು ಸಂಬಂಧಿಕರು ಕೆಟ್ಟ ದೃಷ್ಟಿಯಿಂದ ನೋಡ ತೊಡಗಿದರು.  ಮತ್ತು ಆತನ ಜೊತೆ ಮಾತನಾಡಲು ಮತ್ತು ಊಟ ಮಾಡಲು ಹಿಂದೆ ಮುಂದೆ ನೋಡ ತೊಡಗಿದರು.  ಇದರಿಂದ ಫಿರ್ಯಾದಿದಾರನು ನರಕಯಾತನೆಯನ್ನು ಅನುಭವಿಸಿದನು.

3.  ನಂತರ ಫಿರ್ಯಾದಿದಾರನಿಗೆ ಎದುರುದಾರನು ನೀಡಿದ ರಕ್ತದ ಪರೀಕ್ಷೆಯ ವರದಿಯ ಮೇಲೆ ಅನುಮಾನ ಬಂದು ದಿನಾಂಕ: 13-03-2014 ರಂದು ವೈದ್ಯಾಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳು, ಐ.ಸಿ.ಟಿ.ಸಿ. ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕ ಆಸ್ಪತ್ರೆ, ಗಂಗಾವತಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ತನ್ನ ರಕ್ತ ಪರೀಕ್ಷೆಯನ್ನು ಮತ್ತೆ ಮಾಡಿಸಿದನು.  ಆದರೆ ಅಲ್ಲಿ ರಿಸಲ್ಟ್ ಆಫ ಎಚ್.ಐ.ವಿ. ಎಚಿಟಿ ಬಾಡಿ ಟೆಸ್ಟ್ ನೆಗೆಟಿವ್ ಎಂದು ತೋರಿಸಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ.  ಇದರಿಂದ ಫಿರ್ಯಾದಿದಾರನು ಸಮಾಧನಗೊಂಡು ಮತ್ತೆ ಅದೇ ದಿನ ದಿನಾಂಕ: 13-03-2014 ರಂದು ಶ್ರೀ ಚಂದ್ರಶೇಖರ ಸ್ವಾಮಿ ಡೈಗ್ನೋಸ್ಟಿಕ್ ಸೆಂಟರ್ ಗಂಗಾವತಿ ಇವರಲ್ಲಿ ರಕ್ತ ಪರೀಕ್ಷೆಯನ್ನು ಮಾಡಿಸಿರುತ್ತಾನೆ.  ಅಲ್ಲಿಯೂ ಎಚ್.ಐ.ವಿ. ನೆಗೆಟಿವ್ ಎಂದು ಬಂದಿರುತ್ತದೆ.

            5.  On the aforementioned facts, the complainant sought for compensation under the following heads;

            1.  For mental harassment                       -           Rs.   6,00,000.00

            2.  For Negligence of OP                           -           Rs.   6,00,000.00

            3.  For deficiency in service                     -           Rs.   6,00,000.00

            4.  For litigation & other expenses         -           Rs.     10,000.00

                                                TOTAL                     -           Rs. 18,10,000.00

            6.  Notice of the proceeding serviced to OP on 09-7-2014.  The written version ought to have been filed by the OP on or before
08-8-2014 as per Sec. 13(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act – 1986.  On 22-08-2014 the written version was not filed.  The advocate filed vakalat on that day and time extended upto 30-8-2014 but the written version was not filed.  Hence we are not looking into the contents of the written version filed in this case on 19-09-2014 as CPC is not applicable to the proceedings before the District Forum constituted under the Consumer Protection Act – 1986 in view of the principles enunciated by the National Commission in – Rajpipla Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd., V/s Magic Properties Pvt.Ltd., & Anr., -  [2014] CJ 103 (N.C), wherein it has been observed thus;

            “Xxxxxxxx. The preliminary objection should form part of the written version or written version should be filed within the time prescribed, under Section 13 of the C.P. Act or the written version should be accompanied by a separate application raising the preliminary objection.  The litigant is not directed to dodge the provision of the C.P. Act, on the ground that, without filing the written version, his preliminary objection should be decided, first of all, Section 13 of the C.P. Act, clearly provides that the written version must be filed within 30 days, from the date of service and if there is some genuine ‘sufficient’ ground, this Commission can further extend the time to 15 days’, meaning thereby, that written version has to be filed within 45 days, from the date of service.  This is a mandate given by the Apex Court, by three Judges’ Bench, reported in the case of Dr.J.J.Merchant and others vs. Srinath Chaturvedi, III (2002) CPJ 8 (SC), where it was unambiguously laid down:

“……… From the aforesaid section, it is apparent that receipt of the complaint, the opposite party is required to be given notice directing him to give his version of the case within a period of 30 days or such extended period not exceeding 15 days as may be granted by the District Forum or the Commission.  For having speedy trial, this legislative mandate of not giving more than 45 days in submitting the written version or the version of the case is required to be adhered to.  If this is not adhered, the legislative mandate of disposing the cases within three or five months would be defeated.”

2.  In case, if the preliminary objection is filed, first of all and that too, in the absence of written version, the very object of the scheme of C.P.Act, 1986, shall stand defeated.  The requirement of Law is that the case must be decided within 180 days.”

            7.  In paragraph – 6 of the decision, the National Commission stated as follows;

“6. We are of considered view, that C.P.Act and CPC envisage two different procedures.  Under the C.P.C., there is no time frame.  Under C.P.Act, a Consumer Complaint has to be decided, within 180 days and Revision Petitions and First Appeals are to be decided, within 90 days.  Moreover, C.P.C. provides a long procedure, but Consumer Protection Act, 1986, provides a summary procedure.  Order 8, Rule 1 cannot be equated with Section 13 of the C.P.Act.”

            8.  However, this Forum find it appropriate to make reference to the last paragraph in page – 3 of the affidavit evidence filed by the opposite party in his affidavit evidence filed on 17-10-2014 in this proceedings, which reads as follows;

“ಸದರಿ ಪ್ರಕರಣದಲ್ಲಿ ಫಿರ್ಯಾದಿದಾರ ಕೋರಿದ ಪರಿಹಾರದ ಹಣ ರೂ.18,10,000/- ಯಾವುದೇ ಸಕಾರಣಗಳು ಇರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಮತ್ತು ದಾಖಲೆಗಳು ಇರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ.  ಫಿರ್ಯಾದಿದಾರ ಎಚ್.ಐ.ವಿ. ಪರೀಕ್ಷೆ ಮಾಡಿಸಿಕೊಂಡ ದಿನವೇ ಇನ್ನೊಂದು ಪರೀಕ್ಷೆಯನ್ನು ನಾನೇ ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ.  ಅದರಲ್ಲಿ ಎಚ್.ಐ.ವಿ. ನೆಗೆಟಿವ್ ಬಂದಿದ್ದು ಎರಡು ದಾಖಲಾತಿಗಳನ್ನು ಡಾಕ್ಟರ್‍ರವರಿಗೆ ತೋರಿಸಲು ಕೊಟ್ಟಿದ್ದು ಇರುತ್ತದೆ.  ಆದರೆ ಫಿರ್ಯಾದಿದಾರನು ಒಂದೇ ಪರೀಕ್ಷೆಯ ದಾಖಲೆಗಳನ್ನು ಹಾಜರುಪಡಿಸಿ ಇನ್ನೊಂದು ದಾಖಲೆಯನ್ನು ಮರೆಮಾಚಿ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯಕ್ಕೆ ತಪ್ಪು ಮಾಹಿತಿ ನೀಡಿರುತ್ತಾನೆ ಮತ್ತು ಫಿರ್ಯಾದಿದಾರನು ಪರಿಹಾರ ಪಡೆಯಲು ಯಾವುದೇ ರೀತಿಯಿಂದ ಬಾದ್ಯಸ್ಥನಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಮತ್ತು ನನ್ನ ತಪ್ಪಿನಿಂದ ಸದರಿ ಘಟನೆ ಸಂಭವಿಸಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ.  ಅಲ್ಲದೇ ಫಿರ್ಯಾದಿದಾರನು ಸದರಿ ಎಚ್.ಐ.ವಿ. ಕಿಟ್ ತಯಾರಿಸಿದ ಕಂಪನಿಯವರನ್ನು ಪಾರ್ಟಿ ಮಾಡದೇ ಇರುವುದರಿಂದ ಈ ಫಿರ್ಯಾದಿ ಊರ್ಜಿತವಾಗಿವುದಿಲ್ಲ.  ಒಂದು ವೇಳೆ ಫಿರ್ಯಾದಿದಾರನು ಪರಿಹಾರಕ್ಕೆ ಬಾದ್ಯಸ್ಥನು ಎಂದು ಘನ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯವು ತೀರ್ಮಾನಿಸಿದಕ್ಕೆ ಸದರಿ ರಕ್ತ ಪರೀಕ್ಷೆಯ ಕಿಟ್ ತಯಾರಿಸಿದ ಕಂಪನಿಯೇ ಬಾಧ್ಯಸ್ಠರಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ.  ನನ್ನ ಪರ ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಿದ ದಾಖಲೆಗಳನ್ನು ನಿಶಾನೆಗಳಾಗಿ ಪರಿಗಣಿಸಬೇಕೆಂದು ಪ್ರಾರ್ಥನೆ.”

            9.  In the above paragraph, the opposite party intends to introduce a new fact stating that, on the date of which he conducted diagnosis of the blood belonging to the complainant in his diagnostic centre, he conducted two tests one after the other.  The first test was HIV Positive and second test was HIV Negative.  According to us, this is an afterthought version falsely introduced now to escape the liability if possible.  If really what he stated in the affidavit evidence filed on
17-10-2014 was true, the same should have been stated immediately after appearance on 22-08-2014, if not before 08-8-2014.   For what has been stated now by the OP, he had taken more than three months time after filing of the complaint.  The conclusion therefore is that the opposite party has filed false affidavit evidence on 17-10-2014.

            10.  The Opposite party has furnished a purchase invoice dated: 29-01-2014 issued by Prayag Distributors, Sindhanur, which discloses that materials worth Rs.6,288/- has been purchased by the OP, which contains the following details.

            11.  Admittedly above kit has been used for diagnosis of the blood sample belonging to the complainant.  If, there was any manufacturing defect in the kit, the defect should have occurred in all the 120 kits or 100 kits the relevant batch.  The very fact that no defect noticed in the kits of the same batch discloses that the contention now raised by the OP is nothing but false.  

              12.  There is another reason to say that the affidavit evidence filed by OP on 17-10-2014 is false evidence.  If really the OP conducted the second test and the report is negative, the report should have been available with the complainant, since the second report prepared by using computer printing in the same lab.  Hence we are unable to accept the present version.

            13.  If really the OP has given the second report indicating the HIV negative/non-reactive, the complainant should have been happy and there is no reason for him to file a false complaint against the OP, who is not a person known to him.  The very fact that the complainant persuaded the matter by filing the complaint to the District Health Officer and District Police and also intimated the News paper reporter undoubtedly points-out that wrong diagnosis has been made at Vikas Diagnostic Center, Gangavathi on 11-03-2014.

            14.  The O.P. has filed false affidavit before the Forum, which is referred to in the earlier part of this judgment and therefore we propose to award exemplary compensation for such type of diagnosis for the deficiency in service because, there is no proof of the manufacturing defect in the kit used for testing the blood sample.

15.  In case of Dr. Balaram Prasad & another V/s Dr.Kunal Saha & Others – 2014 (1) CCC 1 (NS), the Supreme Court observed as follows;

“100. A perusal of the operative portion of the impugned judgment of the National Commission shows that it has awarded interest at the rate of 12% per annum but only in case of default by the doctors of AMRI Hospital to pay the compensation within 8 weeks after the judgment was delivered on October 21, 2011.  Therefore, in other words, the National Commission did not grant any interest for the long period of 15 years as the case was pending before the national Commission and this Court.  Therefore, the National Commission has committed error in not awarding interest on the compensation awarded by it and the same is opposed to various decisions of this Court, such as in the case of Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr. regarding payment this Court held as under:

“25.  It is, therefore, clear that the court, while making a decree for payment of money is entitled to grant interest at the current rate of interest of contractual rate as it deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum adjudged to be payable and/or awarded, from the date of claim or from the date of the order or decree for recovery of the outstanding dues.  There is also hardly any room for doubt that interest may be claimed on any amount decreed or awarded for the period during which the money was due and yet remained unpaid to the claimants.

26.  The courts are consistent in their view that normally when a money decree is passed, it is most essential that interest be granted for the period during which the money was due, but could not be utilized by the person in whose favour an order of recovery of money was passed.

27.  As has been frequently explained by this Court and various High Courts, interest is essentially a compensation payable on account of denial of the right to utilize the money due, which has been, in fact, utilized by the person withholding the same.  Accordingly, payment of interest follows as a matter of course when a money decree is passed.

28. The only question to be decided is since when is such interest payable on such a decree.  Though, there are two divergent views, one indicating that interest is payable from the date when claim for the principal sum is made, namely, the date of institution of the proceedings in the recovery of the amount, the other view is that such interest is payable only when a determination is made and order is passed for recovery of the dues.  However, the more consistent view has been the former and in rare cases interest has been awarded for periods even prior to the institution of proceedings for recovery of the dues, where the same is provided for by the terms of the agreement entered into between the parties or where the same is permissible by statute.”

            16.  On analysis of the facts of the case, a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) with interest there-on at 10% p.a. from the date of complaint till actual payment is granted as punitive damages u/sec. 14 (d) of the Consumer Protection Act – 1986.  In addition, Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) is awarded towards cost of the litigation.  The OP is directed to report compliance of the order on or before 28-02-2015. 

// ANNEXURE //

List of Documents Exhibited for the Complainant.

Witnesses examined for the Complainant / Respondent.