A.P. Rajiv Swagruha Corporation Ltd. vs V. Satish Chandra

THE above noted revision petitions are directed against the common order dated 14.11.2012 whereby the appeals preferred by the above noted respondents complainants against the order of the District Forum Rangareddy District, Hyderabad were accepted by Andhra Pradesh Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short ''the State Commission'') and the respondent opposite party was directed to refund a sum of Rs. 1,22,000 with 9% interest thereon to the respondent V. Satish Chandra and Rs. 30,000 with 9% interest thereon to the respondent M. Vishveshwer Rao. Both the respondents were awarded cost of Rs. 2000 each. The facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petitions are that pursuant to the applications submitted by the respondents, the petitioner Corporation (earlier known as Andhra Pradesh Housing Board) allotted them two bed room flat measuring 685 sq. ft. in the housing project undertaken by the petitioner. The tentative cost of each flat as per the allotment letters was Rs. 10,30,000 to be paid in instalments. The respondent V. Satish Chandra deposited the entire consideration amount of Rs. 10,30,000 whereas the respondent M. Vishveshwer Rao deposited a sum of Rs. 8,30,000 against the cost of the flat. It is the case of the respondents that on their visit to the site, they found that the construction of the flats was substandard. Therefore, respondents vide their respective applications dated 16.10.2009 and 14.10.2009 applied for refund of money paid by them along with interest. The petitioner Corporation, however, refunded sum of Rs. 9,08,000 to the respondent V. Satish Chandra after deducting sum of Rs. 1,22,000. Similarly, the respondent M. Vishveshwer Rao was refunded Rs. 8.00 lacs after deducting Rs. 30,000. Being aggrieved by the deduction made by the petitioner Corporation, the respondents filed separate complaints seeking direction to the petitioner to pay the deducted amounts to them along with interest. Complainant V. Satish Chandra demanded a sum of Rs. 2,04,000 whereas the respondent M. Vishweshwer Rao demanded a sum of Rs. 1,29,600 including interest.

THE petitioner opposite party resisted the complaints. In its respective written statements, the opposite party admitted that the respondents were allotted two bed room flats in response to their applications. The tentative cost of each flat was Rs. 10,30,000, which, however, was subject to change depending upon the cost incurred on the construction. It is also admitted that the respondent Satish Chandra had paid Rs. 10,30,000 against the consideration of the flat whereas complainant M. Vishveshwer Rao had paid a sum of Rs. 8,30,000. The OP denied that the construction of the flat was of inferior quality. The petitioner opposite pleaded in the written statement that the opposite party corporation operates on ''no loss no profit basis. The total cost of construction of flat was much higher than the tentative price. Therefore, the respondent V. Satish Chandra was required to pay the balance amount of Rs. 1,90,000 and respondent M. Vishveshwer Rao was required to pay the balance amount of Rs. 3,90,000 The respondents were unable to pay the balance amounts. Thus, vide their respective letter dated 16.10.2009 and 14.10.2009, they asked for refund of the amount paid by them. It is contended by the petitioner that acting upon the request of the respective complainants, the amount deposited by the respondents were refunded to them after deducting a sum of Rs. 1,22,000 and Rs. 30,000 respectively in terms of the refund policy bearing No. 2182/APRSCL. It is contended that while receiving the refund, the complainants were satisfied with the amount and they received the respective refund amount in full and final settlement of their claims. Thus, the complainants are estopped from reagitating the matter by filing the consumer complaints. Learned District Forum on consideration of the pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties came to the conclusion that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner qua the respondents complainants and dismissed both the complaints vide separate orders. The respondents complainants being aggrieved by the orders of the District Forum preferred separate appeals and the State Commission Andhra Pradesh vide common impugned order allowed the appeal and directed the petitioner opposite party to the refund the amount wrongly deducted to the respective complainants with 9% interest thereon w.e.f. 17.2.2010 and also to pay Rs. 2,000 each as cost

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order is not sustainable as it has been passed in utter disregard of the facts established on record and the law. Expanding on the argument, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the State Commission has failed to appreciate that the petitioners had taken refund of the amount paid by them after necessary deductions in terms of the policy of the petitioner corporation in full and final settlement of their claim. They even signed the full and final settlement receipt and as such they are estopped from reagitating the matter by filing a consumer complaint. It is argued that while deciding the appeal, the State Commission has misapplied the ratio of judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of United India Insurance v. Ajmer Singh Cotton & General Mills & Ors., : VI (1999) SLT 590 : II (1999) CPJ 10 (SC) : (1999) 6 SCC 400. In support of this contention, learned Counsel has referred to the copy of the refund policy framed vide order No. 2182/APRSCL/Mktg./09 dated 12.10.2009. The respondents failed to put in appearance despite of service. As such they were proceeded ex parte.

THERE is merit in the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has placed on record copy of the hand receipts purported to have been executed by the respondents. On perusal of these hand receipts, it is seen that the respondent V. Satish Chandra has received a sum of Rs. 9,08,000 towards refund of four instalments paid by him in full and final settlement of his claim. Similarly, respondent V. Vishveshwer Rao has also executed a receipt confirming that he has received sum of Rs. 8.00 lacs from the petitioner towards refund of three full instalments and fourth part instalment paid by him in full and final settlement of his claim. On perusal of the above noted refund policy, we find that amount of refund paid to the respective complainants is in terms of the refund policy. There is no allegation in the complaint either of respondent V. Satish Chandra or M. Vishveshwer Rao to the effect that full and final discharge receipts were obtained from them by misrepresentation, fraud or coercion. Therefore, it is clear that the State Commission while passing the impugned order has misapplied ratio of United India Insurance v. Ajmer Singh Cotton & General Mills & Ors. (supra). The State Commission, in our view, has committed a grave error in holding that it was a coercive bargaining ignoring the fact that there is no such allegation in the respective complaints. In view of the discussion above, it is clear that the impugned order of the State Commission suffers from material irregularity, as such, it cannot be sustained. I, therefore, allow the revision petitions, set aside the order of the State Commission and dismiss the complaints.