HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO. 20540 OF 2010 Between: Arogyavaram Medial Centre represented by its Director Arogyvaram, Madanapalle Mandal, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, Chittoor District, Chittoor represented by its President and three others ...RESPONDENTS ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records in respect of the orders passed by the 1st respondent-District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, Chittoor District in C.C.No. 19 of 2007 confirming the orders passed by the second and third respondents in F.A.No. 538 of 2008 and to quash the same as illegal. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein is the Registered Society having been established in the year 1905 for the purpose of imparting education, providing medical facility and for rehabilitating the persons suffering epidemic deceases such as TB etc and it has been indulging in Research Activity in the field of medicine and has been doing charitable services for the poor needy and economically backward section of the society having been established in the rural area of Chittoor District. It is stated that the petitioner Society is having sufficient equipment and established premises accommodating about 300 beds and it contemplated to establish its own medical college with an object to supplement the service and research of the society. Though the petitioner-Society had started the process of establishing the college in the year 2003-04, it could not secure the permission from the Medical Council of India and that the project has gone into the process of slow down and could not commence the college till date. It is further submitted that certain persons who have contributed the donations to the petitioner-Society demanded to refund their money paid in the form of deposits on the premise that the petitioner has failed to establish the college. Though the petitioner’s Society had suffered severe financial constraints it has made every endeavour to refund the amounts deposited by the individuals and settled all claims without a demur of default. The 4th respondent herein and another though have received their money paid by them subsequently demanded to pay the interest. For that the 4th respondent filed a complaint CC No. 19 of 2007 before the District Forum, Chittoor alleging deficiency of services and sought interest on the amounts deposited by the 4th respondent with the petitioner allegedly for securing the seat in the Medical College proposed to be established by the petitioner. The District Forum, Chittoor, first respondent herein has passed an award directing the petitioner-Society to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the amounts refunded from the date of the deposit of the said amount till the date of refund without adverting to the issue of jurisdiction to entertain such complaint filed by the 4th respondent. Being aggrieved by the orders of the first respondent-District Forum, the petitioner-Society herein filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent-The A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and it initially having entertained the appeal though has granted interim stay of the orders passed by the first respondent-District Forum, dismissed the appeal without giving any findings on the issue of jurisdiction of the District Forum of entertaining the complaint. Aggrieved by orders passed by the second respondent-A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the petitioner-society preferred a revision before the third respondent-National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in R.P.NO. 1068 of 2010 and the same was disposed of observing that the award of compensation in the shape of interest @ 18% per annum, for the period the amounts remained with the petitioner institution by no means excessive. However, we would clarify that the interest so awarded by the District Forum and affirmed by the State Commission shall be payable only from the respective dates of deposit to the corresponding dates of refund only. Being aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in the absence of any specific agreement with regard to the grant of interest, the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction and he has drawn our attention to Section 2(d) and (g) of the Consumer Protection Act. He also submits that the 4th respondent received an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- towards final settlement and in the absence of any agreement, they cannot claim interest as a matter of right and the primary authority, the appellant authority and the revisional authority have erred in giving direction to pay interest. He further contended that the language of Section is very clear and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the petitioner- Society and there was no delay attributable on its part and because of the circumstances beyond its control the petitioner’s-Society could not fulfil the promise made. To rebut the contention, the learned Government Pleader has drawn our attention to the letter submitted by the 4th respondent to the petitioner-society on 24.11.2005, which reads as under: “We have paid Rs. 5.00 lakhs (Five Lakhs Only) for medical seat in your institution for my daughter A. Vijaya Chitra. Now I request you to refund the full amount as we do not willing to wait further as it is getting too late. I further assure that I will not claim any right for the seat reserved. You settle the amount before December 2005.” He also submits that the Act is not tenable and the same does not attract the present facts and circumstances of the case. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and also perused the material made available on record. As seen from the record, the 4th respondent has deposited the amount with the petitioner’s-Society and that the petitioner’s Society is deriving benefit from out of that amount. Whenever deficiency of services are there, the Consumer Protection Act is made applicable and it is only to enable the consumer to redress the grievance so as to get the remedy in a short time, and that is the main object and purport of the Act. For ready reference, we will have a glance on section 2(d) and (g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which reads as under: “(d) ‘consumer’ means any person who,- (i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or (ii) (hires or avails of) any services for consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who (hires or avails of) the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person (but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose) (Explanation: For the purposes of this clause, ‘commercial purpose’ does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment.) (g) ‘deficiency’ means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service; Here in this particular case, the petitioner-Society has retained the money of the 4th respondent for its benefit and it has not returned the same as promised. The promise, which the petitioner-Society has undertaken, has not fulfilled, which resulted in mental agony and also torture to the 4th respondent. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Society that there is no written agreement cannot be accepted inasmuch as the petitioner-society can fulful the conditions of the oral agreement. Therefore, the primary forum, appellate forum and the revisional forum have rightly dealt with the issue as far as the applicability of the Act is concerned, and rightly awarded the interest. We do not find any infirmity or irregularity or jurisdictional error to exercise our certiorari jurisdiction. In the circumstances, the Writ Petition fails and accordingly, the same is dismissed. However, the petitioner-Society is given time till the end of September 2010 to comply with the order. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _____________________ G. CHANDRAIAH , J DATE: 18.08.2010 KA Note: Furnish copy in three days. ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies.