AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Subhash Chandra, Presiding Member
This first appeal under section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, ‘the Act’) challenges the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U T Chandigarh (in short, ‘the State Commission) in CC no.333 of 2017 dated 26.03.2018 allowing the complaint partly and directing the appellants:
i. To refund the amount of Rs.21,25,000/- to the complainant, along with interest @ 13% per annum from the respective dates of deposits onwards;
ii. To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainant as also escalation in prices; and
iii.To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.33,000/- to the complainant.
The facts, in brief, are that the respondent had booked a plot ad-measuring 250 sq yards in the appellant’s housing scheme (viz.,) ‘The Palm – Eco City’ Mullanpur, District SAS Nagar, Chandigarh, at Rs.17,000/- sq yards for a basic sale price of Rs.42,50,000/-. Rs.21,25,000/- (50%) was paid in cash and cheque on 28.04.2012 against a valid receipt. However, as the possession was delayed by the appellant, the respondent approached the State Commission with prayer to:
a. Direct the opposite party to refund the principal amount of Rs.21,25,000/- paid towards the booking amount for the plot along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of deposit since no buyer’s agreement has been executed by the OP Co., with the complainant till dated i.e., even after 5 years of booking and possession has been delayed much beyond even the reasonable period;
b. Direct the opposite party to pay to the complainant compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the harassment, mental agony, expenses and loss caused to her, diverting her funds to OP’s other projects and for practicing unfair trade practice and deficiency in service;
c. Direct the opposite to pay to the complainant Rs.1,00,000/- as litigation expenses; and
d. Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission deems fit and proper.
We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record carefully. The short point in this case is the applicable rate of interest at which the compensation has been awarded by the State Commission to the respondent along with cost towards mental agony and harassment. It was contended by the appellant that the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Commission have consistently held that refund of the deposit with compensation @ 9% per annum from the respective dates of deposits is fair and equitable and that as per its judgment in DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., vs D S Dhanda (2020) 16 SCC 318, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that award of compensation under multiple heads for a singular default for deficiency was not justifiable. It was therefore, argued on their behalf that a reasonable rate of interest may be levied in this case also while modifying the order of award of Rs.1.00 lakh for mental agony.
Per contra, the counsel for the respondent argued that the rate of interest awarded @ 13% was fair and equitable and that in view of the delay caused by the appellant, the respondent was entitled to compensation for mental agony.
The respondent has stated that the appellant had floated a housing scheme known as ‘The Palm - Eco City in village Mullanpur Garibdas, District SAS Nagar and it was also assured by the appellant that all necessary permissions and approvals for launching the said project had been obtained and possession of the plots would be delivered within two years. It was also stated that the appellant did not issue the allotment letter and possession of the plot was also not offered within the stipulated time frame. It was also stated that the project was launched without obtaining approval from GMADA. Learned counsel for the respondent further states that the rate of interest @ 13% per annum as awarded by the State Commission is very low and rather the State Commission ought to have awarded the rate of interest @ 18% per annum on the amount to be refunded to the respondent. Hence, it is prayed that the appeal filed by the appellant be dismissed with heavy costs and the order of the State Commission be modified to the extent that the appellants be directed to refund the principal amount along with interest @ 18% per annum.
From the foregoing discussion, it is evident that there has been an admitted delay in handing over the possession of the said plot to the respondent. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sushma Ashok Shiroor, Civil Appeal No. 6044 of 2019 decided on 07.04.2022 that on the amount deposited interest @ 9% per annum as compensation is fair and equitable. While the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held in Ghaziabad Development Authority vs Balbir Singh, (2004) 5 SCC 65 that the rate of interest could be varied on the facts and circumstances of the case, in the instant case the impugned order does not set out any specific reasons to justify the award of compensation @ 13% per annum. It is also not the case of the appellant that there was a carrying cost on the amount deposited by way of a loan which was being serviced on interest. Therefore, the award of interest @ 13% in this case is not justified. The law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of D S Dhanda (supra) with regard to the compensation on multiple heads for a singular default has also to be followed which the State Commission’s order does not do. The appeal is therefore, liable to succeed.
In view of the foregoing, and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned is modified as under:
a. Appellant is directed to refund the amount of Rs.21,25,000/- to the respondent at the rate of 9% per annum instead of 13% per annum from the respective dates of deposits.
b. Appellant is also directed to pay the litigation cost of Rs.33,000/- to the respondent.
c. Award of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment is set aside.
Pending IAs, if any, shall stand disposed of with this order.