Lok Housing and Constructions Ltd. vs ANTONY V. SOARES

APPELLANT was the opposite party before the State Commission, where the respondent/complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant.

VERY briefly the facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant booked a flat with the appellant against which he was allotted a flat, price of which was Rs. 5,98,500, out of which complainant paid an amount of Rs. 3,59,100. Since there was no progress in the execution of work despite agreement dated 20.8.1996, the complainant requested for refund of the price with compensation. Since this was not being done, a complaint was filed before the State Commission for refund of deposited amount along with compensation. The opposite party contested the case; however, after hearing both the parties, directed the appellant to refund the deposited amount along with interest @ 18% p.a. from 1.12.1995 till actual payment plus compensation of Rs. 50,000 along with cost of Rs. 5,000. Aggrieved by this order, this appeal was filed before this Commission. Vide order dated 13.6.1998, this Commission admitted the appeal limited to the point of ''compensation. We heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. The respondent/complainant upon issue of notice has sent his brief note of submission and requested that this being considered as his arguments. The limited point before us, raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the interest on refund of money, under the Maharashtra Ownership (Regulation of the Permission of Construction, Sale Management and Transfer) Act, 1963, could not exceed 9% interest. This point has also been upheld by this Commission in catena of judgments. We also see that as per the written submissions, the principal amount along with interest @ 18% and cost of Rs. 5,000 has already been paid to the respondent/complainant, whereas as per this Commission''s order dated 30.6.1998, the payment of Rs. 50,000 of compensation was stayed.

We have seen the arguments advanced by the respondent/complainant that on account of delay as well as the cost escalation, he was awarded a compensation of Rs. 50,000. Prima facie they appeared to be convincing but it is also settled law that as per the provisions of Act cited above, the interest cannot exceed more than 9% p.a. whereas the State Commission awarded and respondent has received interest @ 18% p.a. On equity, we are of the view that while we will not ask the complainant to return the excess amount of interest paid, as per ratio of judgment in the case Life Insurance Corporation Ltd. v. Mani Ram, III (2005) CPJ 31 (SC)=VI (2005) SLT 210, decided in appeal 4806/2005 by the Hon''ble Supreme Court on 5.8.2005, in our view, the ends of justice shall be made, if in view of the fact that the complainant has been adequately compensated by way of interest @ 18%, in such circumstances, the award of Rs. 50,000 given as compensation is set aside.

IN view of above, we partly allow this appeal and modify the order passed by the State Commission to the extent that Rs. 50,000 awarded as compensation shall not be payable by the appellant to the respondent/complainant. Rest of the award stand satisfied. No further payment/recovery is ordered. This appeal stands disposed of in above terms. Appeal partly allowed.