Full Judgment
A.P. Chowdhri, President:
1. Brief facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that Mr. B. Behl, complainant for short, applied for 2000 Master Gain -1992 of Rs. 10,000/- each on 17.5.1992. He submitted a cheque for Rs. 20,000/- alongwith the application. The units were to be issued by the respondent by 30.9.1992. The complainant, however, failed to receive the units. In June, 1993, the complainant received only 200 units against 2000 units applied for by him. He wrote several letters and telephone calls but to no purpose. He filed a complaint before District Forum-II on 26.11.1993. The remaining 1800 units were received alongwith opposite party's letter dated 22.11.1993.
2. On a consideration of the matter District Forum-II held the delay caused in sending the allotted certificates to constitute deficiency in service. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case damages amounting to Rs. 2,000/-were awarded. Dis-satisfied with the order, the complainant has preferred this appcal.
3. The appellant failed to appear when the appeal was called on for hearing. We have, therefore, heard Mr. Anil Kumar Anand, Manager of the respondent and have gone through the records.
4. The contention of the appellant in the grounds of appeal is that he had actually spent a sum of Rs. 1,194/- in postage, telephone charges, photostat charges and by way of taxi fare in pursuing the matter with the respondents for receiving the balance 1800 units. His further contention is that he was entitled to Rs. 3,780/- on account of interest on the sum of Rs. 18,000/- from 1.10.1992 to 30.11.1993 @ 18% p.a. He further claimed interest amounting to Rs. 120/-on the sum of Rs. 2,000/- from 1.10.1992 to 31.3.1993.
5. The facts stated above are not in dispute. According to Mr. Anand there occurred an inadvertant mistake which was later on rectified and the balance 1800 units sent to the complainant. Mr. Anand submitted that according to the complainant's own showing, he had not suffered any monetary loss for the delay in issuing the units and the complainant had been duly compensated by the award of Rs. 2,000/- which had since been paid to him.
6. The main thrust of arguments in the grounds of appeal is that Rs. 18,000/- being the price of balance 1800 units remained available to die respondent trust from 30.9.1992 to 22.11.1993. The implication is that the respondent must have earned interest on the said amount and there was no reason justifying the unjust enrichment and they should pay the amount to the appellant. This argument does not convince us. The respondent has issued the balance units from the original series and the units carry all the consequential benefits from the date of issue. Once the money was paid and the units allotted, the respondent was in any case entitled to that amount. It is of no consequence whether the amount remained with the bankers of the respondent or the respondent itself. This seems to be the reason why the complainant did not put forward any case for recovery of interest on the amount for the period for which there was delay in sending the units.
7. The other argument put forward is that the appellant spent Rs. 11,094/- in postage, telephone charges, photostat charges and by way of taxi fare in pursuing the matter with the respondents for the balance 1800 units. We do not find any material substantiating the plea that the said amount was, in fact, spent by the appellant. In the totality of facts and' circumstances of the case, we find that the amount awarded by way of damages by the District Forum calls for no interference. We, accordingly, dismiss the appeal with no order as to costs. A copy of the order be conveyed to both me parties as well as District Forum-II.
Appeal dismissed.