Manohar Infrastructure & Construction Pvt. Ltd vs Sahil Vasisht

Karuna Nand Bajpayee, Presiding Member

This appeal has been filed under Section 19 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 07.08.2017 of the State Commission in complaint no. 241 of 2017.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant (the ‘builder co.’) and for the respondent (the ‘complainant’). Perused the record.

The matter pertains to a builder-buyer dispute. The award made by the State Commission with respect to the C.C. No. 241 of 2017 as contained in para 40 of its impugned Order dated 07.08.2017 is reproduced below for reference:

For the reasons recorded above, all the complaints are partly accepted, with costs in the following manner:-

--- --- --- ---

--- --- --- ---

In consumer complaint no. 241 of 2017 titled as Sahil Vasisht Vs.

M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited, the  opposite party is directed as under:-

i. To refund the amount Rs. 22,50,000/- to the  complainant, alongwith interest @13% p.a.,  from the respective dates of deposits onwards.

ii. To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1.50 lacs for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainant, as also escalation in prices.

iii. To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.22,000/- to the  complainant.

Learned counsel for the builder co. submits, on instructions, that the builder co. is willing to refund the amount of Rs. 22,50,000/- deposited by the complainant with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the respective date(s) of deposit till actual realisation along with lumpsum compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- and the cost of litigation of Rs.22,000/-. He also submits, on instructions, that the amount as any deposited by the builder co. with the State Commission in compliance of this Commission’s interlocutory Order dated 19.02.2018 along with interest if any accrued thereon may be unconditionally released to the respondent / complainant and the balance amount will be made good within eight weeks from today. Learned counsel further requests that this case may not be treated as a precedent.

Learned counsel for the respondent / complainant submits, on instructions, that the afore terms are acceptable to the respondent /complainant.

In the wake of the above submissions nothing more survives for adjudication in this appeal. The same is thus disposed of with the following directions:

The award made by the State Commission is modified to the extent that the builder co. shall refund the amount of Rs.22,50,000/- deposited by the complainant with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the respective date(s) of deposit till actual realisation along with lumpsum compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- and the cost of litigation of Rs.22,000/-. The amount as any deposited by the builder co. with the State Commission in compliance of this Commission’s interlocutory Order dated 19.02.2018 along with interest if any accrued thereon, if not already released, shall be forthwith released by the State Commission to the complainant. The residual amount of the award, as firmed-up herein, shall be made good by the builder co. within eight weeks from today, failing which the State Commission shall undertake execution, for ‘enforcement’ and for ‘penalty’, as per the law.

This Order has been made on consent. As such the decision in this case shall not be treated as a precedent.

The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the appeal and to their learned counsel as well as to the State Commission immediately. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.

‘Dasti’, in addition, to facilitate timely compliance.