V N DHOOT Vs. BALBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance of the appellant against the impugned order dated 8.3.2000 whereby it has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,820/- on account of interest @ 18% for delayed redemption of bonds purchased by the respondent from the appellant is that there was no delay on their part in redeeming the bonds.

(2.) Admittedly the respondent was holding 200 bonds of Rs.40/- each of the appellant company which were to be matured on 20.2.1998 and that the rate of redemption was Rs.100/- per bond but these were redeemed in August, 1998. Though the respondent claims to have the bonds to the appellant by registered post on 23.1.1998 but the Counsel for the appellant contends that no such bonds were ever received by the appellant and a communication was sent to the respondent in May, 1998 itself seeking option of consent for encashment of the bonds.

(3.) The plea raised by the appellant appears to be a feeble attempt to escape its liability for delayed payment. Had the bonds not been received by the appellant some time in the month of January or so the question of redeeming them in August without having received the original bonds would not have arisen. To ask a consumer or a customer after three months of the maturity of the bonds or an option of positive consent for encashment of the bonds itself amounts to deficiency in service though it may not be a ploy to delay the payment as alleged by the respondent. For such a deficiency the appellant can only be burdened with the interest which was payable on the bonds itself and not the higher interest as awarded by the District Forum. The object of the provision of the Consumer Protection Act is to protect the interests of the consumer to such an extent that it should not verge on making the consumer unjustly enriched and the providers of service poorer on account of its non-liability.