Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondents.

2.      This appeal is filed u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter called the ‘Act’ in short). Parties hereinafter were arrayed as the complainants and OPs as per their nomenclature before the learned District Forum.

3.      The case of the complainant in nutshell is that the complainant being the employee under OP Nos. 2 and 3 had incurred loan of Rs.50,000/- The terms and conditions of loan was that  OP Nos. 2 and 3 would deduct the EMI from the salary of the complainant and submit to OP No.1. The loan was to be deducted in 72 instalments. In spite of that OP Nos. 2 and 3 deducted 103 instalments exceeding Rs.32,705/-. As such, the complainant requested to refund Rs.32,705/- which is recovered in excess. OP No. 1 did not accept the request of the complainant, as such the complaint was filed.

4.      OP No. 1 filed written version stating that there is no cause of action to file the case. The case is barred by limitation. According to him complainant was requested to refund the excess amount  of Rs.32,705/- recovered from him. According to him the deposits were made subject to scrutiny by OP Nos. 2 and 3. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of  OP No.1.

5.      OP Nos.2 and 3 filed written version stating that the complainant has obtained housing loan with undertaking that EMI would be recovered from his salary. OP Nos. 2 and 3 have not recovered any excess amount from the salary of the complainant. So, there is no deficiency in service on their part.

6.      After hearing both the parties, the learned District Forum passed the following order:-

“xxxxxxxxx

In the result, the OP No.1 is directed to refund the excess amount of Rs.32,705/- (Rupees thirty two thousand seven hundred five) only to the complainant along with interest @6% per annum. We also direct the OP No.1 to pay Rs.2,000/- to the complainant towards cost of litigation. The above amount shall be paid by OP No.1 to the complainant within 60 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to recover the same u/s 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The case of complainant against OP No.2 and 3 is dismissed since they are exonerated from their liability in view of the above discussion. The consumer complaint of the complainant is disposed off accordingly.”

7.      The only question in this case is to decide whether the complainant is entitled to higher interest as submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant.

8.      It appears that 6% interest was awarded but the complainant requires more percentage of interest because he has to pay to the financer at the rate of 13.5% per annum. In fact the interest of 6% at that time is more but now it is minimized one. Therefore, considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, while confirming the impugned order, we direct OP No.1 to refund Rs.32,705/- to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum instead of 6% per annum. Rest part of the impugned order remains unaltered.

9.       The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No cost.

           DFR be sent back forthwith.

         Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.