9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
- Appeal for modifying the majority order of the National Commission - Entitlement to compensation and interest for wrongfully withholding amount - Justification of rejecting the claim of appellant for compensation and interest - Entitlement to interest rate on delayed deposit - Applicability of Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code - Granting interest in lieu of compensation or damages - Adequacy of interest rate awarded by the State and National Commission Analysis: The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court seeking modification of the majority order of the National Commission, based on the observation of one of its members. The appellant claimed entitlement to compensation and interest for wrongfully withholding an amount deposited in its bank account. The appellant detailed its entitlement to various amounts, including principal, interest, compensation for business losses, and damages. The State Commission partly allowed the complaint, directing the respondent to pay a specific amount with interest. The National Commission upheld this order, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court. The State and National Commissions found that the amount realized from the deposited cheque was not wrongfully retained by the bank but kept as margin money for a guarantee furnished by the bank on behalf of the appellant. The appellant failed to prove the termination date of the guarantee contract. Thus, the negligence of the respondent was not established, leading to the rejection of the appellant's claim for compensation and interest by the State and National Commissions. Regarding the entitlement to interest rate on delayed deposit, the appellant relied on Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code. However, the Court noted that there was no contract between the parties for payment of interest on delayed deposit or service delays. While Section 34 was not directly applicable to proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, interest could be granted based on justice, equity, and good conscience, as well as in lieu of compensation or damages. The Court referred to legal precedents and the Interest Act of 1839 to support the awarding of interest in appropriate cases. The State and National Commissions were justified in awarding interest to the appellant. However, the Court found the interest rate of 12% inadequate given the circumstances. The Court modified the orders, granting the appellant payment of the principal amount with interest at a rate of 15% per annum, to serve the ends of justice. The difference in the amount due to the enhanced interest rate was directed to be paid to the appellant within a specified timeframe.
|
