Kamlakar Ramakant Kulkarni vs Rachna International Pvt. Ltd. & 3 Ors.

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Kamlakar Ramakant Kulkarni, against the order dated 23.12.2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra (in short 'the State Commission') passed in First Appeal No.997 of 2016.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant had given 15 lakhs as part payment against the total consideration of Rs.21 lakhs for purchase of flat from the opposite parties/respondents. It is the case of the complainant that the building was being built on a disputed land and when he objected, the opposite parties offered to return the amount paid to him to which he agreed. Accordingly, the opposite parties returned Rs.15 lakhs. The complainant later filed a consumer complaint No.99 of 2016 for the interest to be paid for the period from August 2015 to January, 2016. Complaint was resisted by the opposite parties on the ground that there was no agreement and the opposite parties have deposited approximately Rs.50,000/- as service tax but still they have refunded total amount of Rs.15 lakhs. The District Consumer Redressal Forum at Osmanabad, (in short 'the District Forum') after considering the submissions of both the parties dismissed the complaint vide its order dated 06.10.2016.

The complainant then preferred an appeal bearing No.997 of 2016 before the State Commission and the same was dismissed vide its order dated 23.12.2016 on the ground that the complainant has already accepted the refund of the total amount of Rs.15 lakhs without any protest, therefore, he was estopped from making fresh complaint.

Hence the revision petition.

Heard the petitioner in person and learned counsel for the respondents.

The petitioner stated that the building was being built on a disputed plot i.e. a government land and therefore, he asked for refund of the amount. The money was kept by the opposite parties with them for about six months and he is entitled to get interest @18% p.a. on this amount. The petitioner further stated that had he refused or made any protest at the time of receiving Rs.15 lakhs, he may not have received even this amount.

The learned counsel for the respondents stated that the total consideration of the flat was Rs.21 lakhs. The complainant/petitioner paid only Rs.15 lakhs and could not pay the remaining Rs.6 lakhs. In fact the petitioner expressed his inability to pay any further amount and asked for refund and therefore, total paid amount of Rs.15 lakhs has been paid to the petitioner. There was no agreement either oral or written between the parties to pay interest on the refunded amount. The learned counsel further mentioned that the opposite party has already spent Rs.50,000/- as service tax and the company would have deducted Rs.25,000/- for breach of the contract from the complainant. Thus, the respondents have already waived off Rs.75,000/- and have not asked the complainant to pay the same. Both the fora below have given concurrent finding and the scope under the revision petition is very limited in such cases.

I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by both the parties and have examined the record. The fact of the matter is that even though there was no written agreement, but it is accepted by both the parties that the amount of Rs.15 lakhs remained with opposite parties from August, 2015 to January, 2016

I agree with the contention of the petitioner that he was not in a position to make any protest because at that time his first priority was to get the total amount of Rs.15 lakhs. Had he protested at that time his payment of Rs.15 lakhs would have also been delayed. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Alok Shanker Pandey Vs. Union of India &Ors., II (2007) CPJ 3 (SC) 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."

Based on the above ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear that the value of money changes by passage of time and the same is reflected in the form of interest. Here, the money remained with the opposite parties for about six months and therefore the complainant is entitled atleast for some interest. In the facts and circumstances of the case and looking at the bank rates etc. , I deem it appropriate to allow an interest @ 10% p.a. that seems justified and sufficient. Thus, the complainant would be entitled to receive interest of Rs.75,000/-. However, the opposite parties spent Rs.50,000/-, which is also reflected in the order of the District Forum. I also deem it appropriate to allow deduction of this amount from the interest payable to the complainant.

Based on the above discussion, the revision petition No.854 of 2017 is partly allowed and orders of the fora below are set aside. Respondents are directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) to the petitioner/complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of this order.