LAXMIBAUG SAHAKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT Vs. PANDHARINATH NATHU TAMBE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 3.8.2010 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (for short 'the State Commission') in FA No. 1259/2008, original opposite party has filed the present petition purportedly under Section 24(b) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 in order to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this Commission. The facts and circumstances which led to the filing of the complaint are amply noted in the Fora below and need no repetition at our end. The consumer dispute raised by the complainant was in regard to the refund of sum of Rs. 6 lakh which had become due on maturity in respect of the deposits made by the complainant under the scheme Damduppaat Scheme by depositing a sum of Rs. 3 lakh in the name of his family members. The OP admitted issuance of 12 receipts for Rs. 25,000 each in the name of the family members of the complainant as also receipt of Rs. 2 lakh but denied the payment in respect of the four receipts, i.e., amounting to Rs. 1 lakh. On a consideration of the matter, the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 6 lakh with interest @ 12% p.a. overlooking the factual position that during the pendency of the complaint, the petitioner society had in fact paid a sum of Rs. 4 lakh to the complainant on 20.1.2008. The fact having been brought to the notice of the State Commission in appeal at the time of hearing the appeal, the State Commission has corrected the mistake committed by the District Forum and modified the order in the following manner:

(2.) We have heard Mr. Mahaling Pandarge, Counsel for the petitioner and have considered his submissions. He reiterated his submission that the petitioner society has not committed any deficiency in service because the petitioner had always been willing to pay the amount due on maturity in respect of the deposit of Rs. 2 lakh which was not acceptable to the complainant. However, since the complaint was filed, the amount which was due to the complainant was paid and, therefore, the District Forum and State Commission should not have allowed the interest on the said amount of Rs. 4 lakh from 27.4.2006 to 20.1.2008. We, however, see no merit in this contention because the interest has been awarded for the period during which the amount even as per reckoning of the complainant was not paid after the date of maturity. In our view, the order passed by the State Commission is based on correct and proper appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence and material brought on record. There is no illegality, material irregularity much less any jurisdictional error in the impugned order which warrants interference by this Commission. Revision petition is accordingly dismissed as devoid of any merit.