P. Sathasivam, J. - (1.) This appeal is filed by the Appellant-Temple through its Joint Commissioner against the final order dated 31.05.2006 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short "the National Commission") at New Delhi in First Appeal No. 411 of 1997 whereby the Commission dismissed their appeal.
(2.) Brief facts: (a) The Appellant is a temple situated in the State of Tamil Nadu. It is one of the ancient temples of Lord Kartikeya and is considered prime among the six holiest shrines of the Lord. Every year, lakhs of devotees throng the temple which is situated on a hill to receive the blessings of the Lord. The temple is being administered by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu. The devotees make offering in cash and kind to the deity. The cash offerings are collected and invested in various forms. The income derived from such investments is utilized for charitable purposes such as prasadams, hospitals, schools and orphanages. (b) According to the Appellant, it had deposited a huge sum of money totaling to Rs. 1,40,64,300/- with the Post Master, Post Office, Palani from 05.05.1995 to 16.08.1995 for a period of five years under the Post Office Time Deposit Scheme (in short the Scheme). On 01.12.1995, the Temple received a letter from the Post Master, Post Office, Palani-3rd Respondent herein informing that the Scheme had been discontinued for investment by institutions from 01.04.1995, and therefore, all such accounts should be closed without interest. The amount deposited by the Temple was refunded only on 03.01.1996 without interest. (c) Aggrieved by the decision of the Postal Authorities, the Appellant, on 10.01.1996, sent a legal notice to the Respondents calling upon them to pay a sum of Rs. 9,13,951/- within a period of seven days, being the interest @ 12% p.a. on the sum of Rs. 1,40,64,300/- from the dates of deposit till the dates of withdrawal. As nothing was forthcoming from the Respondents, the Appellant preferred a complaint before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short "the State Commission"). Vide order dated 08.08.1997, the State Commission was divided over its opinion in the ratio of 2:1. The majority opinion comprising of the Chairman and Member II dismissed the complaint filed by the Appellant. (d) Aggrieved by the dismissal of the complaint by the State Commission, the Appellant preferred an appeal to the National Commission which was also dismissed on 31.05.2006. Challenging the said order, the Appellant has preferred this appeal by way of special leave before this Court.
(3.) Heard Mr. S. Aravindh, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, learned Additional Solicitor General for the Respondents.;