AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This appeal under section 19 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is in challenge to the Order dated 26.03.2019 of the State Commission in complaint no. 290 of 2018.
Learned counsel for the appellants (the ‘builder co.’) and the learned proxy counsel for the respondents no. 1 and no. 2 (the ‘complainants’) make their submissions. Respondent no. 1 (the ‘complainant no. 1’) present in person also makes his submissions.
No one appears for the respondent no. 3 (the ‘society’).
Perused the record.
The matter pertains to a builder-buyer dispute. The award made by the State Commission as contained in para 58 of its impugned Order dated 26.03.2019 is reproduced below for reference:
For the reasons recorded above, this complaint is partly accepted with costs against the opposite parties and they are jointly and severally held liable, in the following manner:-
i. To refund the amount Rs. 29,08,750/- to the complainants, alongwith interest @13% p.a., from the respective dates of deposits onwards.
ii. To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only), for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainants, as also escalation in prices.
iii. To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs. 33,000/- to the complainats.
Learned counsel for the builder co. submits, on instructions, that the builder co. is willing to refund the amount of Rs. 29,08,750/- deposited by the complainants 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.1,00,000/-. 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 04.09.2019 along with interest if any accrued thereon may be forthwith released to the complainants and the balance awarded amount will be made good within eight weeks from today. Learned counsel further requests that this case may not be treated as a precedent and the issues involved may be kept open.
Learned proxy counsel for the complainants submits, on instructions, that the afore terms are acceptable to the complainants. Complainant no. 1 in person confirms.
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. 29,08,750/- deposited by the complainants 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. 1,00,000/-. The amount as any deposited by the builder co. with the State Commission in compliance of this Commission’s interlocutory Order dated 04.09.2019 along with interest if any accrued thereon shall be forthwith released by the State Commission to the complainants. The balance awarded amount 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. And the issues involved are kept open.
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.