AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This appeal has been filed under Section 19 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 28.11.2018 of the State Commission in complaint no. 662 of 2018.
We have heard the learned counsel for the builder co. (the appellant herein) and the learned counsel for the complainant (the respondent herein). We have also perused the material on record, including inter alia the State Commission’s impugned Order dated 28.11.2018 and the memorandum of appeal.
The matter relates to a builder-buyer dispute. Briefly, the complainant paid a total amount of Rs. 22,83,125/- to the builder co. between May 2011 and February 2014 for a plot, against a sale consideration of Rs. 23,25,000/-. A provisional letter of allotment was issued by the builder co. on 08.02.2014 in respect of a particular plot which was stated to be a corner plot on a 60 feet wide road. Subsequently however the builder co. changed the originally allotted plot, which was not acceptable to the complainant. The State Commission has held the act and conduct of the builder co. of not delivering possession of the plot originally allotted to the complainant to be deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice and has ordered it to refund the amount of Rs.22,83,125/- deposited by the complainant with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the respective dates of deposit till realisation along with lumpsum compensation inclusive of cost of litigation of Rs.35,000/-.
Learned counsel for the builder co. submits that the builder co. is ready and willing to refund the amount of Rs. 22,83,125/- deposited by the complainant with reasonable interest. The rate of interest of 12% per annum awarded by the State Commission is however unjust & inequitable and unreasonably high. According to the learned counsel a rate of interest of 8% to 9% per annum would be just and equitable.
On the other hand learned counsel for the complainant submits that the State Commission has awarded interest as provided for in Rule 17 of the Punjab Apartments and Property Regulations Rules, 1995. He further submits that, even otherwise, in the overall facts & circumstances and specificities of the case, and inter alia taking into account the patent deficiency and unfairness & deceptiveness on the part of the builder co. by way of its act of changing of the allotted plot unilaterally as also the continuing uncertainty and difficulty being faced by the complainant, the rate of interest of 12% per annum is quite reasonable and justified per se and there is no good reason to dilute it.
A perusal of its Order shows that the State Commission has made an apt reasoned appraisal of the evidence. It is well evinced that the builder co. unilaterally and capriciously changed the complainant’s plot, to his detriment and dissatisfaction. We agree with the State Commission that such act and conduct on the part of the builder co. is tantamount to both deficiency in service and unfair trade practice as defined under the Act 1986.
Coming to the issue of rate of interest being contended on behalf of the builder co. in the arguments today, we may first note that there can be no two opinions that since the originally allotted plot was not offered to the complainant, and since he is unwilling to accept the one-sidedly changed plot in its stead, the builder co. is dutybound to refund the amount deposited by him along with reasonable interest.
In respect of the rate of interest, it is seen that the State Commission has essentially drawn its rationale from a state legislation (i.e. Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (PAPRA)) and has objectively awarded the rate of interest without much subjectivity. However even otherwise in the given facts and circumstances of this particular case the rate of interest of 12% per annum awarded by the State Commission appears to be just and equitable per se, commensurate with the loss and injury suffered. We do not perceive any elements of disproportion. As such we find no good ground to disturb the same.
The appeal, being bereft of merit, is dismissed.
The award made by the State Commission is confirmed.
The amount if any deposited by the builder co. in compliance of this Commission’s Order dated 12.01.2021 along with interest if any accrued thereon shall be forthwith released by the State Commission to the complainant as per the due procedure. The balance awarded amount shall be made good by the builder co. within four weeks from today, failing which the State Commission shall undertake execution, for ‘enforcement’ and for ‘penalty’, as per the law.
The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the appeal as well as to the State Commission immediately. The stenographer is also requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.