Lawang T. Pulger & Anr.                     -- Petitioner 
                 Vs.
M/s ICICI Infotech Services Ltd. & Anr. -- Respondents

Before: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.S. Gupta, Presiding Member, Hon'ble Mrs. Rajyalakshmi Rao, Member, Mr. B.K.Taimni, Member.

PER MR. B.K.TAIMNI, MEMBER :-

     Petitioner was the complainant before the District Forum.

     Brief facts of the case - as they emerge from the record are that the Petitioners - who are husband and wife, with a view to purchase 'Safety Bonds' floated by the 1st Respondent obtained a DD for Rs. 1 lakh drawn from the second Respondent in favour of the 1st Respondent and deposited with the 2nd Respondent to be sent to the 1st Respondent. This DD was sent by the 2nd Respondent to the 1st Respondent's office in Calcutta along with all the required documents. It is the case of the complainants that they were never issued Safety Bonds while it is the case of the 1st Respondent, that since they never received the said DD no Safety Bonds. 1st Respondent was willing to issue Safety Bonds provided a new DD is sent to them as per condition 15 of the Scheme. When this was not happening and since the DD's life/validity had expired, they were willing to refund Rs. 1 lakh but upon the Petitioner's/Complainant's giving an Indemnity Bond. When the complainant saw no progress, neither any satisfactory response a complaint came to be filed by him before the District Forum who after hearing the parties passed order in following terms:-

     "that the case be and the same is allowed on contest. We direct the OP No. 1 to refund the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (One lakh) to the complainants together with interest @ of Rs. 18/- per annum to be calculated on and from the date of receipt of the "Demand Draft" on 12-05-1998 till the payment and/or realized and recovered whichever is earlier. The OP No. 1 shall also pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/-, and costs of Rs. 500/- to the Complainants. The OP No. 1 shall pay the entire amount within 60 days from the date of communication. Let authenticated copies be supplied to the parties forthwith."

     Upon an appeal being filed by the 1st Respondent, State Commission passed the order, operative part of which reads:-

     "For the aforesaid reasons, the judgement of the Forum is modified to the extent that the complainants would be entitled to get Rs. 1.00 Lakh from Respondent 3 on the above score.

     In the event, the amount as aforesaid is not paid within the stipulated period by Respondent - 3, it would carry interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of default till payment."

    Aggrieved by the order the Petitioner has filed this Revision Petition before us.

     We heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner did apply in the prescribed format for allotment of 20 Bonds for which DD for Rs. 1 lakh was sent through the 2nd Respondent to the 1st Respondent's Branch in Calcutta. On record there is a document acknowledging receipt of all this material in May 1998 itself. Money stood debited from the Petitioner's account. He has been without the money for over five years now. We see a long correspondence between the parties but we do not see as to what was done by the 1st Respondent's Branch at Calcutta with the papers/application/DD received. It is admitted that there has been some departure from clause 15 of General Instructions, but this could be no ground for sitting over the money all this long. This is an admitted position that Petitioner paid the money to 1st Respondent's Branch in Calcutta. It is supported by the acknowledgement and the stand in written version/reply of the 2nd Respondent. 'Inter-Branch' lack of communication cannot be a ground for depriving the Petitioner of his rightful due. In this case, bottom line is award of interest for the period for which the Petitioner was deprived of the use of money. In our view, the State Commission went wrong in deleting the interest on the amount awarded by the District Forum. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner was candid enough to admit that rate of interest granted by the District Forum is on higher side. We appreciate his gesture. In our view, there is no doubt that the 1st Respondent was deficient in rendering service to the Petitioner, for which they need to compensate the Petitioner. 

     We are unable to sustain the order of the State Commission which is modified to the extent that the Order of the District Forum is restored except that refunded amount shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. and not 18% as directed by District Forum. Other reliefs granted by the District Forum are also restored. This Petition is allowed in above terms with cost of Rs. 2000/- payable by the 1st Respondent to the Petitioner/Complainant.