HARINDER SINGH DHALL vs SAHARA PRIME CITY LTD

This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 2.11.2015, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission") in Appeal No. 951/2015, "Harinder Singh Dhall Vs. Sahara Prime City Ltd.", vide which, while dismissing the said appeal, the order dated 23.07.2015 passed by the District Forum, Ludhiana in consumer complaint No. 843/11.12.2014, dismissing the said complaint, was upheld.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant/petitioner Harinder Singh Dhall filed a consumer complaint against the OP Builder, Sahara Prime City Limited, saying that in response to their advertisement in the newspaper, he booked a three-bedroom flat at Jaipur, with area about 135.95 sq. mtr. vide application dated 14.02.2006 and made payment of the total demanded amount of 27,08,175/-. The complainant alleged that when he went to Jaipur city to verify the situation of the property, he was shocked to see that there was no construction at all. On taking up the matter with the OP company, a sum of 35,06,061/- was refunded to him, which included the principal amount deposited by him, alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. The complainant demanded that he should have been paid interest @15% p.a. rather than 9%p.a., because the OP builder was charging interest @15% from the allottees in case of default committed by such allottees. The complainant demanded that the OPs were liable to pay an additional sum of 6,47,000/- as difference of interest to him and also give him compensation to the tune of 3 lakh, alongwith 50,000/- as litigation expenses.

The District Forum vide their order dated 23.07.2015, dismissed the complaint, based on letter dated 22.05.2014, written by the complainant to the OP that he had received the payment of 35,06,069/- from them and he was satisfied with that. The District Forum also held that the complainant was not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the District Forum at Ludhiana, because the property was situated at Jaipur. Being aggrieved against this order, the complainant challenged the same by way of an appeal before the State Commission, which was also dismissed on similar grounds by the said Commission. Being aggrieved against the order of the State Commission, the complainant is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.

During proceedings before this Commission, the petition was ordered to be dismissed for non-prosecution on 14.09.2016, because none appeared for the petitioner, even after the fourth call on that date. However, a miscellaneous application, M.A. No. 558/2016 was filed by the petitioner, saying that he was an old person of 70 years of age, and being sick on that day, he could not appear before this Commission. MA No. 558/2016 was allowed and the petition was restored to its original number. The arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner were heard in detail.

As stated by the petitioner/complainant himself, he had already received the amount deposited by him with the OP company alongwith interest @9% p.a. and he had handed over a satisfaction note to them vide letter dated 22.05.2014 addressed to them. A copy of the said letter has been attached with the revision petition by the petitioner himself and it says in clear terms that he had received cheque for 35,06,069/- from the OP and was satisfied. The concurrent findings given by the consumer fora below, therefore, cannot be faulted in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction, because the complainant has nowhere denied writing the said letter to the OP company. In case, the complainant wanted a higher compensation or higher rate of interest, he should have at best accepted the said amount "under protest", but he chose not to do so. The view taken by the consumer fora below that the petitioner/complainant was debarred from raising the issue further, is based on a logical analysis of the facts of the case. In the revision petition, attention has been drawn to an order passed by this Commission in " Swaran Talwar & Ors. Vs. Unitech Ltd. " [CC No. 347/2014 decided on 14.08.2015], as per which the OPs have been asked to pay compensation as simple rate of interest @18% p.a. from the date of deposit till the date of payment. However, the decision taken in that case cannot be made applicable to the present case, because the complainant himself expressed satisfaction after accepting the amount refunded by the OP builder alongwith interest @9%. It is held, therefore, that there is no merit in this revision petition and the same is ordered to be dismissed in limine and the orders passed by the consumer fora below are upheld. There shall be no order as to costs.