GURANNA Vs. JEETENDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This batch of cases raises a short but important question of law, the question being about the jurisdiction of a Consumer Fora to award interest in lieu of or in addition to compensation as talked of in Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act') and further, whether such interest should be awarded to a consumer who has been deprived of his money for a certain period and if so, from what date and at what rate. Challenge in this batch of petitions is to the common order dated 11.1.2007 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (for short the 'State Commission') in appeal Nos. 2788/2006 to 2826 of 2006 (27 appeals). The appeals before the State Commission have been filed by the complainants, petitioner herein, against the common order of the District Consumer Forum at Gulbarga in complaints Nos. 40/06 to 66/06 dated 27.10.2006 by which order the District Forum had partly allowed the above referred complaints giving direction to the opposite party-dealer of TVS Motor Vehicles to refund the deposited amounts to each complainant along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of realization besides a sum of Rs. 1,000 as compensation towards mental agony and cost of the proceedings with a stipulation that amount shall be paid within one month from the date of the said order. Not contended with the said order passed by the District Forum, the complainants approached the State Commission through appeals but without success as the State Commission disposed of the appeals by means of a very short order which we would like to reproduce here:

(2.) In nut shell the case of the complainants before the District Consumer Forum was that they wanted to acquire TVS Centra motor cycle and for that purpose they had approached M/s. Nisty Automotive, Gulbarga (later on dissolved) and through its Manager of the said firm deposited a sum of Rs. 25,000 towards the registration/cost of one TVS Centra motor cycles on 10.3.2004 on the promise of the opposite party that motor cycle would be delivered to the respective complainants within a short time. It so happened that after deposit of the amounts, the TVS dealership agency of the opposite party firm was terminated on 1.4.2004 i.e. about twenty days after the deposit of the money by the respective complainants. So neither the motor cycles could be delivered, to the complainants nor the money deposited by them, was refunded to the complainants promptly, though the complainants approached the said dealer for the refund of the money and served legal notice also. Complainants filed the complaints which were resisted by the opposite party raising certain pleas but the factum of the deposit of the money by the respective complainants on 10.3.2004 was not disputed. However, liability to pay any interest much less the interest at the rate sought for in the complaints was denied. On trial the District Forum partly allowed the complaints as noted above.

(3.) Going by the order passed by the District Forum and as affirmed by the State Commission, one can say that the orders so passed by the Fora below are just and reasonable because the fora below besides ordering the refund of the entire amount deposited by each of the complainants, has also compensated the complainants by awarding interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the complaints. This view perhaps can be justified. However, the complainants feel that the kind of relief which they got from the Fora below is neither adequate nor reasonable and commensurate to the loss and injury caused to them on account of deprivation of the money, which they had deposited with the opposite party. Therefore, the need to examine the question as stated in the opening paragraph of this order. It may be observed that there is no uniform practice and perhaps no strait-jacket formula can be evolved to determine as to what would constitute a reasonable compensation or interest in lieu of that which should precisely match with the nature and extent of the loss and/or injury suffered by a consumer on account of deficiency in service by the service provider. This has been left to the judicial discretion of the Fora seized of the matter. Judicial discretion must however, be exercised according to the principles laid down over the years and should not be arbitrary or whimsical.