SHRENIK MARBLES LTD Vs. SPEEDLINE MOT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Facts in both these appeals are common and are disposed of by this consolidated order. Heard the parties.

(2.) The appellant had booked two Toyota Qualis vehicles manufactured by Toyota Co. , with the respondent and had duly paid the advance amount of Rs.50,000/- on 28.2.2000. For one reason or the other the respondent could not supply the vehicles to the appellant within the stipulated time. The appellant, therefore, demanded his money back with interest and other expenses which the respondent could not pay to him. He, therefore, filed Complaint Nos.321 and 322/2001 which both have been decided by the Forum by separate orders of the even date i. e. , 17.4.2002. The Forum has directed that the respondent should refund the amount of Rs.50,000/- to the appellant with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum for the period from 28.2.2000 to 3.7.2000 and interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from 4.7.2000 to the date of actual and final payment of the aforesaid amount.

(3.) It was brought to our notice that after disposal of the complaints of the appellant by the Forum in the manner stated above, the respondent paid the aforesaid amount with interest as mentioned above in the course of proceedings under Sec.25/27 of the C. P. Act, 1986 (the Act ). The grievance of the appellant before us, however, is that he had to incur a lot of expenditure in contacting the respondent through telephone, registered letters, personal visits by car, etc. and had to suffer business loss also in his efforts to get the refund of his amount deposited by him with the respondent. But the Forum awarded simple interest at the rate of 9 per cent and 12 per cent per annum to him and did not duly compensate him for the trouble taken by him in contacting the respondent in visiting his business premises. It was further submitted that the interest for four months i. e. , from 28.2.2000 to 3.7.2000 was though correctly awarded at the rate of 9 per cent per annum as per terms and conditions between the parties but thereafter interest should have been awarded to him as per prevalent market rate. It was submitted that on loans secured by them from the Banks he had to pay interest much above 18 per cent per annum and, therefore, he should have been duly compensated for the use of his money by the respondent during the period the amount was not paid to him.