Judgment:
K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 30.8.2013 passed by Odisha State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack (in short, the State Commission) in Appeal No. 228 of 2013 “ Kirti Chandra Kanungo Vs. Sahara City Homes Marketing and Sales Corporation and Ors. by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum was upheld.
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner filed Complaint No. 296 of 2009 before District Forum and learned District Forum dismissed complaint. On appeal, learned State Commission vide order dated 19.4.2010, allowed appeal and directed OP to refund deposited money of Rs.90,800/- with 6% p.a. interest. Complainant filed revision petition and this Commission in R.P. 2091 of 2010 decided on 12.7.2011 directed OP to refund aforesaid amount with 18% p.a. interest. As OP-respondent-judgment debtor failed to comply the order of this Commission, complainant filed execution petition demanding Rs.3,00,193/- as on 31.3.2012. OP-respondent in reply submitted that principal amount of Rs.90,800/- were deposited on 15.1.2005 and interest @ 18% p.a. till 11.6.2012 was calculated which comes to Rs.1,21,055/- and after deducting TDS Rs.12,252/-, remaining balance of Rs.1,99,633/- was paid to the complainant through demand draft dated 13.6.2012 and prayed for recall of non-bailable warrants issued by District Forum. Learned District forum after hearing both the parties, dismissed the execution application and recalled non-bailable warrants. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission in limine vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.
3. Heard petitioner in person at admission stage and perused record.
4. Petitioner submitted that respondent was to make payment @ 18% p.a. compound interest, whereas only simple interest has been paid; hence, revision petition be admitted. Order of this Commission runs as under:
œWe are, therefore, of the opinion that the order passed by the fora below should be modified to the extent that the opposite party is directed to refund the deposited amount of Rs.90,800/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. w.e.f. the date of deposit till its payment. The payment shall be made to the complainant-petitioner within a period of four weeks by means of a demand draft?.
5. Perusal of order clearly reveals that only 18% p.a. simple interest has been allowed by this Commission and as there was no direction for compound interest, petitioner was not entitled to grant of compound interest. Learned State Commission rightly dismissed appeal and we do not find any infirmity in the order of District Forum dismissing execution.
6. Petitioner has submitted that as respondent is charging 18% p.a. compounding interest; hence, petitioner should also be allowed compounding interest. We do not find any substance in the submissions of the petitioner because this Commission has awarded 18% p.a. simple interest and District Forum had no authority to modify the order of this Commission and allow compound interest.
7. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.