M/S. DHUNI CHAND HARBANS LALA THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR/ANIL BERI, 2/49, GANDHI CHOWK ABOHAR PUNJAB Vs. JANTA TENT HOUSE THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR/PARTNER SANJEEV BERI, SHOP NO. 7, JAIN DHARAMSHALA, CORCULAR ROAD ABOHAR PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order of the State Commission Punjab dated 19.11.2009 in First Appeal No. 1572 of 2003.

(2.) Briefly stated facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that respondent through its proprietor / Partner filed a consumer complaint in District Forum Ferozepur alleging that respondent complainant deposited with the petitioner on his request sums of Rs.43,000/- & 50,000/- vide cheques dated 16.12.1987 and 10.03.1988. It was mutually agreed between the parties that the petitioner opposite party shall return money with the agreed rate of interest after the stipulated period of one year. The amount, however, was not returned and the parties agreed that the deposit shall continue with the petitioner opposite party at the agreed rate of interest. The said amount alongwith interest became Rs.10,22,648.56P, on the basis of interest calculated @ 19%. It was further pleaded that the petitioner opposite party had deducted a sum of Rs.17061/- as TDS in respect of interest earned by the complainant on the deposit and deposited the same with the tax authorities. It is alleged that the respondent complainant asked for the refund of his amount with interest but the petitioner opposite party failed to oblige. Being aggrieved of the refusal of the petitioner to pay the amount, the respondent opposite party filed a consumer complaint.

(3.) The petitioner on being served with the notice of complaint filed a written statement wherein the transaction of deposit alleged by the complainant was denied. It was denied that on 31.03.2012, the deposited amount with agreed interest had become Rs.10,23,648.56P or the said amount was payable to the complainant. It was further pleaded that the petitioner had delivered jewellery worth Rs.10,02,648/- to the complainant on 27.03.2003 which amount is actually due in favour of the petitioner from the respondent opposite party.