Case nº Revision Petition No. 353 of 2006 of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, January 29, 2010 (case 1. Basavarj Phakirappa Vibhuti, 2. Vijay M. Tikare, 3. Suresh M. Tikare, 4. Arun Narayanrao Tikare, 5. Nagappa G. Koni Vs Shakuntala Dharmanna Kullolli)
| Judge | N. P. S. Panwar, S. N. Bhat |
| President | B. N. P. Singh (Presiding Member) & S. K. Naik (Member) |
| Resolution Date | January 29, 2010 |
Judgment:
S. K. Naik (Member)
This revision petition is directed against the order dated 23rd of November, 2005 of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (State Commission for short), dismissing the appeal of the present petitioners, who had assailed the order dated 11th of October, 2005 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dharwad (District Forum for short), vide which the District Forum had allowed the complaint of the respondent/complainant and directed the petitioners/opposite parties to jointly and severally pay a sum of Rs.2,55,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from 28th of January, 2005 till its realization and in addition also pay a sum of Rs.1000/- as compensation for loss and mental agony along with Rs.100/- as cost of litigation.
Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant invested a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- expecting handsome return on the deposit from the petitioners/opposite parties, who were running a poultry farm and were also accepting deposits from the general public assuring good return. There was no fixed minimum period for the deposits which were open ended. When the respondent/complainant sought its redemption so as to meet their medical expenses, the petitioners/opposite parties avoided refunding the deposit on one pretext or the other. This forced the respondent/complainant to file a consumer complaint before the District Forum, who, as stated above, has allowed the complaint in the terms narrated above. The matter thereafter was taken up in appeal before the State Commission by the petitioners/opposite parties, which has been dismissed by the State Commission observing as under:-
Before the DF the complainant has produced the certificates issued by the OPs. The DF after looking into the certificates has held that the complainants have invested the money as referred to in the impugned order. Further as stated earlier in the objection there is no serious dispute regarding the amount deposited by the complainant. If that is the case, we find the DF is justified in directing the OPs to refund the amount with interest. If the OPs have already paid certain amount to the complainant, it is open for them to pay the remaining amount after adjusting the amount already said to have been paid......
It was in this background that the petitioners/opposite parties have filed this revision petition.
Since the respondent/complaint despite having received the notice for hearing...
To continue reading
Request your trial