MD. ANWAR ALI vs JAMIL AHMED FAROOQUI

This appeal is directed against the order of the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (in short, "the State Commission") dated 14.3.2017.

Briefly put, facts relevant for the disposal of the appeal are that the complainant booked a residential flat measuring 2500 sq. ft. on the 2 floor alongwith one garage measuring 300 sq. ft. nd at premises No.70 Tapsia Road, (south), P.S. Tiljala, Kolkata-700046 being developed by the respondent/opposite party. A builder buyer agreement was executed between the parties. The complainant paid Rs.15 lakhs against the total consideration amount of Rs.57,50,000/- to the respondent on various dates. According to the complainant despite of having received a substantial part of consideration amount, the opposite party failed to deliver possession of the flat. As a matter of fact the opposite party with malafide intention started searching for some other purchaser to sell the aforesaid flat. Being aggrieved the complainant raised a consumer dispute by filing a complaint before the State Commission seeking following reliefs: - "(a) to deliver possession or alternatively return the price of the flat and garage at Rs.57,50,000/-; (b) to execute and register the deed of conveyance in respect of the flat and garage as mentioned in the schedule of the petition of complaint; (c) to pay compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- and (d) litigation costs etc."

The opposite party resisted the consumer complaint by filing a written statement, denying the allegations. According to the opposite party he has very good relationship with the complainant. In January, 2012 the opposite party approached the complainant seeking loan to finance MBA studies of the son of the opposite party. The complainant agreed to give the loan and obtain the signatures of the opposite party on some papers. However, the money receipt issued while giving the loan contained each and every detail. The opposite party, however, pleaded that in order to avoid litigation opposite party was ready and willing to return the amount to the complainant.

The State Commission on consideration of pleadings and the evidence allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to refund a sum of Rs.15 lakhs to the complainant with 12% interest thereon from the date of payment till realization; besides cost of Rs.10,000/- was also awarded.

The complainant being aggrieved of the amount of compensation awarded has filed the appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

Learned counsel for the complainant has contended that 12% interest awarded by the State Commission on the principal amount is too meager and is not adequate compensation for the harassment and mental agony suffered by the complainant. It is further contended that otherwise also the cost of subject flat has increased substantially. Therefore, the State Commission ought to have awarded compensation calculated on the basis of the value of the flat on the date of judgment.

We do not find merit in the contention of learned counsel for the appellant firstly because appellant has not been able to show any evidence to indicate that the cost of the flat during intervening period had increased substantially.

The State Commission has awarded 12% interest on the amount paid by the complainant against the consideration amount which is more than the fixed deposit rates applicable to the banks. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the contention for enhancement of compensation.

In view of the discussion above, we do not find any merit in the appeal. Accordingly dismissed with no order as to cost.