State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
F.A.No.7/13:N.Surender Rao, ... vs F.A.No.7/2013:1.Smt.T.Sarada ... on 26 September, 2013
BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD. F.A.No.7/2013 against EA No.17/2011 in C.C.No.821/2007, District Forum-III, Hyderabad. Between N.Surender Rao, S/o.N.Pithamber Rao, aged 52 years, Occ:Business, R/o.C-303, Sai Naar Cedar, Siripuri Colony, West Maredpally, Secunderabad. Appellant/ O.P.1 And 1. Smt.T.Sarada W/o.T.Satyanarayana Aged about 50 years, Occ:Housewife, R/o.H.No.13-1-17, Babu Camp Bellampally, Adilabad Dist., Respondent/ Complainant 2. Alladi Suryanarayana S/o.A.Bala Veeraiah Aged about 75 years, Occ:Retired Service, R/o.H.No.12-10-125, Sithaphalmandi Secunderabad. (The 2nd respondent is not a necessary party to this Appeal) Respondent/ O.P.2 Counsel for the Appellant : M/s. Shashank Goel Counsel for the Respondent : M/s. E.S.Kumar-R1 F.A.No.27/2013 against EA No.17/2011 in C.C.No.821/2007, District Forum-III, Hyderabad. Between Smt.T.Sharada W/o.T.Satyanarayana Aged 40 years, Occ:Housewife, R/o.H.No.13-1-17, Babu Camp Bellampally, Adilabad Dist., Appellant/ Decree Holder And 1.N.Surender Rao S/o.N.Pithamber Rao, Aged 40 years, occ:Business, R/o.Flat No.C-303, Sainar Cedars, Siripuri Colony, West Marredpally, Secunderabad. 2.Alladi Suryanarayana S/o.A.Bala Veeraiah Aged 70 years, Occ:Retired Service, R/o.H.No.12-10-125, Sithapalmandi Secunderabad. (The 2nd respondent herein is not a necessary party to this proceedings and he is a proforma party) Respondents/ Judgement Debtors Counsel for the Appellants : M/s E.S.Kumar Counsel for the Respondents: (M/s Shashank Goel R1) QUORUM: SMT.M.SHREESHA, HONBLE Incharge President AND SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER.
THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN Oral Order:
(Per Sri S.Bhujana Rao, Honble Member.) *** Aggrieved by the order in E.A.No.17/2011 in CC 821/2007 on the file of District Forum-III, Hyderabad the opposite party No.1 preferred F.A.No.7/2013 and the complainant preferred F.A.No.27/2013.
Since both the appeals arise out of a common order, they are being disposed of by this order.
The complainant filed EA No.17/2011 to punish respondent No.1 for failing to comply with the orders passed in CC No.821/2007 dated 07/12/2007. In the order in CC No.821/2007, the District Forum directed the opposite party no.1 to pay Rs.18,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- towards costs against which the opposite party No.1 filed FA No.1839/2007 before this Commission and also filed FA.IA.No.3135/2007 seeking stay of the order of the District Forum and this Commission vide order dated 28/12/2007 granted interim stay on condition of the Respondent No.1/Opposite party No.1 deposits an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- in addition to the statutory amount before this Commission, within a period of 4 weeks and in pursuance of the said order, opposite party no.1 deposited an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- on 24-1-2008 and F.A.No.1839/2007 was dismissed by this Commission for default.
Against which the respondent No.1/O.P.1 preferred R.P.No.3077/2010 before the Honble National Commission and the Honble National Commission, passed an interim order dated 21-3-2011 granting stay subject to deposit of Rs.6,00,000/- with the District Forum in addition to deposit of Rs.60,0,000/- already been deposited before the State Commission and also directed the respondent No.1 to remit a sum of Rs.10,000/- directly to the respondent/complainant by way of DD to meet the travel and allied expenses and in pursuance of the said order, R1 deposited a sum of Rs .6,00,000/- before the District Forum on 30-3-2011 and the National Commission allowed the R.P. and remanded the case to the State Commission, for being disposed of on merits. Thereafter, this Commission has disposed of F.A.No.1839/2007 on merits modifying the order passed by the District Forum and directing the respondents to pay Rs.6,00,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from 14-8-2003 till realization.
The complainant filed R.P.No.4188/2011 before the National Commission and the said revision was dismissed on 06-3-2012 confirming the order passed by State Commission and therefore the complainant preferred Special Leave Petition No.17670/2012 before the Honble Supreme Court of India against the order in R.P.No.4188/2011, but the said SLP was dismissed as withdrawn.
The learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant contended that the complainant has not enjoyed the fruits and hence the complainant is entitled to interest on Rs.6,00,000/- from 14-8-2003 till date, whereas the learned counsel for R1/O.P.1 contended that interest has to be calculated on Rs.6,00,000/- from 14-8-2003 till 24-1-2008 only as by which date R1 has deposited Rs.12,00,000/- and the interest comes to Rs.4,80,000/- for 4 years 5 months and 11 days and Rs.2000/- has been added towards costs and the total amount for which the complainant is entitled comes to Rs.10,82,300/- and R1/opp.party no.1 has deposited 12,00,000/- and opp.party no. 1 is entitled for refund of excess amount of Rs.1,17,700/-.
The District Forum after hearing both sides held that the State Commission in F.A.No.1839/2007 dated 29-9-2011 directed opposite party no.1 to pay Rs.6,00,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. from 14-8-2003 till the date of realization together with costs of Rs.2,000/- and if interest is calculated from 14-8-2003 till 29-9-2011, it comes to Rs.8,77,500/- and the total amount i.e. Principal + Interest comes to Rs.14,77,500/- and if the amount of Rs.12,00,000/- is deducted, the balance comes to Rs.2,77,500/- and thereafter interest from 17-12-2012 till realization comes to Rs.60,765/- and the total amount still payable is Rs.3,38,265/- plus costs of Rs.2,000/- =Rs.3,40,265/- and hence the District Forum directed R1 to pay an amount of Rs.3,40,265/- by 08/1/2013 and also further directed that the petitioner is entitled to further interest at 18% p.a. on Rs.2,77,500/- from 17-12-2012 till realization.
Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party No.1 preferred F.A.No.7/2013 and the complainant preferred F.A.No.27/2013 Both sides filed written arguments.
The complainant filed complaint in C.C.No.821/2007 on the file of District Consumer Forum III, Hyderabad. The said complaint was allowed on 07.12.2007, directing the opposite party no.1 to pay an amount of Rs.18 lakhs along with costs of Rs.2000/- to the complainant and dismissed the complaint against opposite party no.2. Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party no.1 preferred an appeal No.1839/2007 on the file of this Commission. Along with the said appeal, opposite party no.1 filed an application seeking stay of execution of the order dt.07.12.2007.
This Commission granted say of the execution of the order on the condition of deposit of an amount of Rs.6 lakhs.
Pursuant to the said order, the opposite party no.1 deposited the said amount of Rs.6 lakhs, before this Commission. Subsequently, this Commission dismissed the appeal no.1839/2007 on 15.06.2010 for non prosecution of the appeal, even though the matter is posted for dismissal.
After dismissal of the above appeal no.1839/2007 vide order dt.15.06.2010,the complainant filed Execution Application E.A.No.17/2011, before the District Forum for realization of the amount. While execution application is pending before the District Forum, opposite party no.1 preferred Revision Petition No.3077/2010 before the Honble National Commission, along with an application for stay of execution proceedings. The Honble National Commission granted stay on condition of deposit of Rs.6 lakhs before the District Forum, in addition to the amount deposited in the State Commission. After hearing both the parties, the Honble National Commission allowed the Revision Petition and remanded the matter to this Commission for fresh consideration. After hearing the parties afresh, this Commission vide its order dt.29.09.2011 modified the order of the District Forum-III dt.07.12.2007 and directed the opposite party no.1 to pay Rs.6 lakhs with interest at 18% from 14.8.2003 till the date of realization.
Aggrieved by the said order of this Commission, the complainant preferred the Revision Petition No.4188/2011 on the file of the Honble National Commission and the same was dismissed by the Honble National Commission vide its order dt.06.03.2012, confirming the order of this Commission dt.29.09.2011. Special Leave Petition filed by the complainant, before the Honble Supreme Court, against the said order dt.06.03.2012 of the Honble National Commission was later withdrawn. All the above facts are admitted facts. Thus the order dt.29.09.2011 of this Commission has become final.
It is not in dispute that the opposite party no.1 is liable to comply with the modified order of the District Forum, according to which the opposite party no.1 has to pay Rs.6 lakhs with interest at 18% p.a. from 14.8.2003 till the date of realization.
The District Forum calculated interest as Rs.8,77,500/- on Rs.6 lakhs from 14.08.2003 upto the date of the order of this Commission in F.A.No.1839/2007 i.e. 29.9.2011 at 18% and thus arrived at an amount of Rs.14,77,500/-. After deducting an amount of Rs. 12 lakhs deposited by opposite party no.1 to the credit of the complaint and to the credit of the appeal, from out of the amount of Rs.14,77,500/-, the District Forum came to the conclusion that the complainant is entitled to receive the balance amount of Rs.2,77,500/- only with interest at 18% from 29.09.2011 till the date of realization. The District Forum after calculating the interest on Rs.2,77,500/- @ 18% upto the date of its order dt.17.12.2012, directed opposite party no.1 to deposit an amount of Rs.3,40,265/-( Rs.2,77,500/- + interest upto the date of the order) the amount due upto the date of the order and directed to deposit the same by 08.01.2013.
The learned counsel for the complainant i.e. the appellant/decree holder in appeal no.27/2013 submitted that as per the order dt.29.09.2011 of this Commission, the complainant is entitled to receive Rs.6 lakhs with 18% interest from 14.8.2003 till the date of realization and opposite party no.1 to pay the said amount which is proper and just. He further submitted that as per the calculation made by them, the complainant is entitled to receive an amount of Rs.16,76,000/-( Principal amount of Rs.6 lakhs + interest of Rs.10,74,000/- at 18% from 14.8.2003 till 24.07.2013 i.e. the date of written arguments filed by the appellants counsel + costs of Rs.2000/-). Therefore, the impugned order of the District Forum is liable to be modified.
The learned counsel for the opposite party no.1 submitted that the opposite party no.1 deposited a sum of Rs.6 lakhs on 24.01.2008 and thereafter another sum of Rs.6 lakhs on 30.3.2011, Rs.12 lakhs in total. There was no direction from any Court of law or authorities restricting the complainant, to withdraw the amount at any point of time.
The complainant was at liberty to withdraw the amount deposited by opposite party no.1. But he did not choose to withdraw any amount for the reason of gaining more interest on the amount that the principal amount is Rs.6 lakhs and the said principal amount is deposited by opposite party no.1 on 24.1.2008 and hence the opposite party no.1 is liable to pay interest only for the period prior to 24.1.2008. Since the opposite party no.1 had parted his amount way back in the year 2008 itself, the question of paying interest thereafter does not arise. As such, sum of Rs.1,17,700/- is lying in excess with the State Commission, which the complainant is not entitled to withdraw. Therefore, the impugned order of the District Forum is liable to be set aside.
We have perused the calculation memo filed by both the parties. In our considered view, both the calculation memos are wrong, as the calculations were not made properly. It is an admitted fact that the opposite party no.1 deposited an amount of Rs.6 lakhs to the credit of F.A. no.1839/2007 on the file of this Commission in compliance of the condition imposed by this Commission while granting stay. It is also an admitted fact that the opposite party no.1 deposited another sum of Rs.6 lakhs to the credit of the complaint before the District Forum in compliance of the stay order passed by the Honble National Commission in Revision petition No.3077/2010, preferred by the opposite party no.1. It is therefore, obvious that opposite party no.1 has not deposited the total sum of Rs.6 lakhs towards the compliance of the order passed by the District Forum and modified by this Commission. He deposited both the amounts only in compliance of the conditional stay orders granted by this Commission, in the appeal and by the Honble National Commission in the Revision Petition preferred by opposite party no.1. Both this Commission and the Honble National Commission did not grant any permission to the complainant, to withdraw the above said amounts. There was direction by the Honble National Commission not to withdraw the amount of Rs.6 lakhs deposited by the opposite party no.1. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered view that Rs.12 lakhs deposited by opposite party no.1 as mentioned above, is not in compliance of the orders of the District Forum and modified by this Commission. Therefore, we are not inclined to accept the above submission of the learned counsel for the opposite party no.1.Therefore, the District Forum has rightly calculated interest as Rs.8,77,500/- on Rs.6 lakhs from 14.8.2003 upto the date of the order of the State Commission at 18% interest and arrived at an amount of Rs.14,77,500/- and after deducting an amount of Rs.12 lakhs from out of the amount of Rs.14,77,500/-, the appellant is entitled to receive the balance amount of Rs.2,77,500/- only. The District Forum itself has mentioned in its order that Rs. 6 lakhs that was deposited by the opposite party no.1, as per the directions of the Honble National Commission is not kept in any bank in fixed deposit. Therefore, it is clear that no interest was accrued on the said amount. However, the amount of Rs.6 lakhs deposited by the opposite party no.1 as per the directions of this Commission, in the appeal is kept in fixed deposit in one nationalized bank and some interest must have been accrued on the said sum. The opposite party no.1 is at liberty, either to withdraw the amount of interest accrued on the said amount of Rs.6 lakhs or may seek for adjustment of the said amount towards the balance amount payable by him to the complainant, in compliance of the order.
For the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not find any irregularity or illegality in the order of the District Forum to interfere with it.
In the result both the appeals i.e. F.A.No.7/2013 and F.A.No.27/2013 are dismissed, giving liberty to the appellant/opp.party no.1 either to withdraw the interest amount accrued on Rs.6,00,000/- deposited as per orders of this Commission or may seek for adjustment of the said interest amount towards the balance amount payable by him to the complainant, in compliance of the order. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
INCHARGE PRESIDENT MEMBER Pm* Dt. 26.9.2013