IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2009 / 19TH ASHADHA 1931 SA.No. 810 of 1996() ---------------------------- AS.220/1992 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKODE OS.184/1987 of I ADDL.SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/ DEFENDANT ------------------------ FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, REP.BY THE DISTRICT MANAGER, CALICUT 673 005, (ASTATUTORY BODY CONSTITUTED UNDER THE FOOD CORPORATION ACT.). BY ADVS. MR.P.JACOB VARGHESE SMT.V.A.GANGUJA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT / PLAINTIFF --------------------------------- 1. CHERUVALAPPIL MARIYAKUTTY UMMA, W/O. LATE KUNHI BAVA. 2. C.V.BEEPATHU , D/O. KUNHI BAVA. 3. C.V.SUHARA, D/O. KUNHI BAVA. 4. C.V.ASHRAF, S/O. KUNHI BAVA. 5. C.V.ASSYA, D/O. KUNHI BAVA. (ALL RESIDING AT CHERUVALAPPIL PONNANI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.T.R.RAVI THIS SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/07/2009 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. == = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = SA.No.810 of 1996. = = = == = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 10th day of July, 2009. J U D G M EN T The appellant is the defendant in OS.No.184 of 1987. The respondents herein instituted the above suit against the appellant seeking a decree for realisation of a sum of Rs.24,165.38 being the security deposit and earnest money with interest thereon. According to the respondents, they submitted tender for the purchase of Punjab boiled rice and at the time of submission of the tender a sum of Rs.5,000/- was deposited as earnest money and on award of contract, a sum of Rs.16,941.80 was deposited as security deposit. But the contract was frustrated. Despite the demand for return the amount deposited was not returned. Hence the suit for realisation of the said amount. 2. The appellant contested the suit. Inter alia it was contended that the trial court had no territorial jurisdiction and the amount is not liable to be refunded and though there is a concluded contract, it was not performed by the respondents and that hence they are not entitled to get back the deposit. SA.No.810 of 1996. -: 2 :- 3. After raising issues the parties were sent for trial. On the side of the respondents the 3rd respondent was examined as Pw1and Exts.A1 to A6 were marked. One witness was examined on the side of the appellant and Exts.B1 to B3(e) were marked. The lower court on appraisal of the evidence on record arrived a finding that the amount in dispute was deposited by the respondents and that it is liable to be refunded. Accordingly, the suit was decreed. Assailing the judgment and decree an appeal as AS.No.220/1992 was filed before the District Court, Kozhikode. By judgment and decree dated 15.1.1996 the appeal was dismissed. Now against the concurrent findings this second appeal was preferred. 4. The following are the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal memorandum. (i) Whether the courts below were justified in holding that there is no concluding contract on the pleadings, facts and evidence in the case, and ignoring the terms of the contract between the parties. (ii) Whether the courts below are justified in awarding interest on the earnest money deposit and security deposit in the absence of any provision entitlement for interest. 5. A careful reading of question No.1 would show that what is challenged is the finding of facts in the light of the pleadings and evidence SA.No.810 of 1996. -: 3 :- and no substantial question of laws is involved. Though the contract was frustrated, there is no material to conclude that the appellant sustained any loss to be reimbursed by the respondents. Hence the appellant is liable to refund the security deposit. There is no mention that the finding of the courts below is opposed to any law or any way perverse so as to interfere in appeal. 6. Question No.2 is regarding the award of interest. Interest is a premium to be given by a party to another for enjoying or withholding the money of another. It is not an independent liability. Once a party is found liable to pay any sum to another, he is liable to pay the interest also. The decree of the trial court would show that the interest was awarded only at the rate of 6% per annum. It is no way exorbitant or arbitrary. I find no reason to interfere with the concurrent finding of facts by the courts below. The appeal is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. Kvs/- SA.No.810 of 1996. -: 4 :- P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. ================== SA.No.810 of 1996. ================== JUDGMENT 10th July, 2009.