AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Prem Narain, J
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner namely Mr. Anirudha Basu & Anr. against the order dated 02.03.2017 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad, (in short 'the State Commission') in F.A. No. 432/2013 which was filed against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (in short "the District Forum") dated 25.02.2013 in C.C. No. 1037/2011.
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner / complainant obtained membership of M/s. Country Vacations International Holiday Club (in short "the Club") by paying membership fee of Rs. 1 lac in the year 2006. The Member was entitled to book holiday resorts of opposite party and the plot of land was also to be allotted free of charge to the Member, however, registration charges were to be borne by the Member. It is the case of the complainant that he was not confirmed any booking for the holiday resorts of the Club and no offer of allotment of plot was also made to him, therefore, the complainant filed compliant being C.C. No. 1037/2011 before the District Forum. The District Forum vide its order dated 25.02.2013 allowed the complaint and ordered the opposite party to refund Rs. 1 lac alognwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of payment i.e. 28.12.2006 till realization. The District Forum also directed the opposite parties to pay Rs. 2000/-as costs.
Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the opposite party preferred appeal bearing F.A. No. 432/2013 before the State Commission and the State Commission vide its order dated 02.03.2017 disposed of the appeal while holding as under:-
"16. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by modifying the impugned order directing the Appellants to execute the conveyance deed in respect of the plot in question in favour of the Respondents within a period of 2 weeks with effect from the date of receipt of development charges of Rs. 15,000/- from them. The Respondents shall bear the registration charges thereof.
The Appellants are further directed to pay a compensation of Rs.20,000/- with costs of Rs. 5000/- to the Respondents within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
Hence, the present revision petition by the petitioners/ complainants.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused records.
The learned counsel for the petitioners / complainants stated that no service was provided by the opposite party which was promised for a Member of the Club. After paying Rs. 1 lac as membership fee, the complainant has not been able to avail any facility promised. Whenever complainant tried to book any resort of the opposite party, he was not provided reservation / booking. Even the plot was not provided as promised to the complainants. The learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the District Forum had allowed the refund of membership fee alongwith interest @ 18% per annum. However, the State Commission has ordered the opposite party to register plot in favour of the complainants / petitioners after making payment of Rs.15000/- by the complainant and the complainant has also to bear registration expenses. The State Commission has only ordered for compensation of Rs. 20,000/- with costs of Rs. 5000/- to be paid by the opposite party to the petitioners / complainants. It was stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainants are not interested in taking possession of the plot as they are not satisfied with the services of the opposite party and they have not availed any services from the opposite party in the past 12 years. Hence, the petitioners are interested only in refund of the amount of membership fee of Rs. 1 lac which was paid to the respondent / opposite party. The District Forum had already passed order of refund and the same should be restored.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent / opposite party stated that for any booking letter should be written much earlier and if letter is written just near the date of booking, it is difficult to ensure the reservation in that resort. The complainant has not paid the annual maintenance fee of Rs. 3000/- per year, therefore, he could not have availed the services provided by the club. Learned counsel further stated that the opposite party is willing to handover the plot and register the plot in the name of the complainants. When there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party, the amount of membership fee of Rs. 1 lacs cannot be ordered to be refunded.
I have carefully considered the arguments of both the sides and have examined the record.
The District Forum has passed order of refund whereas the State Commission has changed this by directing the opposite party to handover the plot and to register the plot in the name of the complainants. The main grievance of the complainants is that no facility has ever been provided by the Club to the complainants and therefore, they want the refund of their membership fee. When the complainants are not interested in taking possession of the plot as it would require some more money to be paid to the opposite party, for which they are not ready, in my view, the District Forum has correctly appreciated the facts and evidence on record and has rightly ordered the refund of the amount paid by the complainants as no facilities were offered to the complainants. The size of the plot has been told to be about 150 sq. yds and perhaps the order passed by the State Commission seems to be more beneficial to the complainants, however, as they are not interested in the plot and are only interested in the refund, I deem it appropriate to order the refund of the amount of Rs. 1 lac paid by the complainants to the opposite party. The learned counsel for the opposite party stated that if the refund is to be ordered, the refund of the amount of membership fee should only be ordered without any interest. In this regard, in my view, as the amount has remained with the opposite party for a long time, the complainants are entitled to interest in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Alok Shanker Pandey Vs. Union of India &Ors., II (2007) CPJ 3 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that:-
"9. It may be mentioned that there is misconception about interest. Interest is not a penalty or punishment at all, but it is the normal accretion on capital. For example if A had to pay B a certain amount, say 10 years ago, but he offers that amount to him today, then he has pocketed the interest on the principal amount. Had A paid that amount to B 10 years ago, B would have invested that amount somewhere and earned interest thereon, but instead of that A has kept that amount with himself and earned interest on it for this period. Hence equity demands that A should not only pay back the principal amount but also the interest thereon to B."
In the facts and circumstances of the case, when the complainants are not willing to take the plot to their own detriment, the order of the refund seems perfectly justified. The District Forum has awarded interest @ 18% per annum which seems to be on a higher side in the context of prevailing interest rate in the banks and in the market. Moreover, if there is no contract in respect of interest between the parties, a Court can only award interest in accordance with the provisions of the Interest Act, 1978 and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in HUDA Vs. Raj Singh Rana, Civil Appeal No.4436 of 2008, decided on 16.7.2008 as under:
"10. The concept of levying or allowing interest is available in almost all statutes involving financial deals and commercial transactions, but the provision empowering Courts to allow interest is 13 contained in the Interest Act, 1978, which succeeded and repealed the Interest Act, 1839. Section 3 of the said Act, inter alia, provides that in any proceeding for the recovery of any debt or damages or in any proceeding in which a claim for interest in respect of debt or damage already paid is made, the Court may, if it thinks fit, allow interest to the person entitled to the debt or damages or to the person making such claim, as the case may be, at a rate not exceeding the current rate of interest, for the whole or part of the periods indicated in the said Section."
Currently, the prescribed Interest rate is 10% per annum. Hence, in the present case, interest @ 10% per annum can be granted which seems to be reasonable and sufficient in the circumstances of the case.
Based on the above discussion, R.P. No. 1370 of 2017 is allowed and the opposite party / respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1 lac (Rupees One Lac Only) alongwith interest @ 10% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 23.11.2011 till actual realization. In addition, cost of Rs. 2000/- as awarded by the District Forum is also maintained. The order of the State Commission dated 02.03.2017 is set aside and the order of the District Forum dated 25.02.2013 stands modified as per this order. This order be complied with by the opposite party / respondent within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt / service of the order.