The Consumer Protection Council, Tamil Nadu and Mrs. Yuvette Margaret Mary Odath, the two Petitioners herein have preferred this Revision Petition under Section 58 (1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the Order dated 07.07.2022 passed by the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madurai (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission”), whereby the Appeal preferred by the Petitioners herein has been allowed and the Order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tiruchirappalli (hereinafter referred to as “the District Commission”) in Consumer Complaint No. 34 of 2012 was set aside and the Complaint was partly allowed. The Opposite Party- Bank, i.e., Indian Bank, Tiruchirappalli was directed to return Rs.40,467/- to the to the nominee the second Complainant and compliance was directed to be made within one month, failing which the interest @ 9% per annum from the date of Order till its realization was also directed to be paid. I have heard, Mr. S. Pushpavanam, who has appeared for the Petitioners and perused the grounds taken in the Memo of Revision Petition as also the documents filed along with it. Mr. S. Pushpavanam, submitted that the State Commission has erred in law in not directing the Respondent- bank to pay interest from the date, when the deduction was wrongfully made as the Petitioners are entitled for the same. He specifically referred to paragraph 18 of the impugned Order, which is reproduced below: “18. At the same time though the bank committed deficiency of service by wrongly entered date of birth, and wrongly calculated pension amount, and wrongly paid excess payment, and wrongly blocked ATM Card just to make complainant to come to their terms which are all amounts to deficiency of service. However, as a successor or legal heirs of the complainant this cause of action abates and compensation can be awarded to the present complainant for their mental agony. Hence we hereby allowed the appeal and set aside the District Forum order and answered accordingly.” According to him, when the State Commission had recording the finding that the Bank had committed deficiency in service in wrongly entering the date of birth, and wrongly calculating pension amount, and wrongly paying excess payment, and wrongly blocking ATM Card which amounts to deficiency of service. Be that as it may taking into consideration the deficiency committed by the Respondent-Bank, the State Commission had directed the Respondent-Bank to return the amount of Rs.40,467/- which had been deducted by it to the nominee of the second Complainant and a direction was issued that it should be paid within a month, failing which the interest @9% per annum from the date of Order till its realization was also directed to be paid. I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned Order in Revisional Jurisdiction. The Revision Petition fails and is dismissed. |
