AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Prem Narain, J
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 30.07.2015 passed by the State Commission in First Appeal No.692 of 2012.
The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant booked a flat with the respondent/opposite party by paying Rs.1.50 lakh. The complaint was filed by the petitioner alleging deficiency on the part of the respondent/opposite party that the possession of the flat was not given in time though the complainant was ready to deposit the total price of the flat. The District Forum vide its order dated 31.05.2012 passed the following order :
"Two sets of relief are granted to the complainant and complainant will be at liberty to choose any of one those sets.
Opposite party shall execute the sale deed of apartment No. A admeasuring 786 sq.ft. along with car part in Riverin Apartment at Arookutty on remittance of Rs.11.50 lakhs by the complainant.
The expenses and incidental charges for registration of the property shall be borne by the complainant.
Set - B
Opposite party shall refund to the complainant Rs.1.50 lakh paid as advance along with interest @ 12 % p.a. from the date of payment to the complainant till realization.
Opposite party shall pay Rs.1,000/- toward costs of the proceedings.
The order shall be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of said order."
Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the opposite party preferred an appeal bearing No.692/2012 before the State Commission. The State Commission modified the order of the District Forum vide its order dated 30.07.2015 and set aside the relief granted under Set 'A' and also set aside the option given to the complainant to choose relief between Set 'A' and Set 'B'.
Hence, the present revision petition filed by the complainant.
On the date of hearing, none was present on behalf of the petitioner and no vakalatnama filed on behalf of the petitioner, even though the same was promised by the learned counsel who appeared for petitioner on the previous date, therefore, the learned counsel for respondent was heard.
The matter is being decided under Section 13 (2) (c) read with Section 22(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The learned counsel for the respondent stated that the respondent has already complied with the Order of the State Commission. The learned counsel further stated that Set 'A' of relief granted by the District Forum cannot be given as the said flat has already been sold to a third party when there was no response from the complainant to deposit the remaining amount. The State Commission has realized that the said flat cannot be given to the complainant and therefore Set 'A' of relief granted by the District Forum has been set aside. The complainant has deposited only Rs.1.50 lakh and the remaining amount of Rs.11.50 lakhs has not been paid by the complainant. As very meagre amount has been paid by the complainant, she cannot expect the possession to be given to her. Under these circumstances, there is no illegality or error in the Order of the State Commission and the same needs to be upheld.
I have gone through the contents of the revision petition and have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent. First of all it is seen that there is a delay of 12 days in filing the present revision petition. As the delay is marginal, the same is condoned on the ground mentioned in the application for condonation of dely. The District Forum has granted two sets of relief. Set 'A' was in respect of the possession to be given to the complainant after the complainant deposited the remaining amount of Rs.11.50 lakhs. Set 'B' relief was in respect of refund of the amount deposited by the complainant along with 12 % interest per annum. The State Commission has set aside the Order relating to the Set 'A' relief and has allowed the complainant to get the relief of Set 'B'. When the said flat is not available to be given to the complainant, clearly relief granted under Set 'A' cannot be realized. In this situation, the State Commission has rightly allowed the relief under set B and set aside the relief granted under set 'A'. Though I am in agreement with the Order of the State Commission so far as it relates to grant of Set 'B' relief to the complainant, further I feel that the cost of proceedings awarded as Rs.1,000/- is very meagre and needs to be enhanced.
Accordingly, apart from the order passed by the State Commission granting relief under Set 'B', the opposite party/respondent shall pay an additional cost of Rs.15,000/- (rupees fifteen thousand only) to the complainant/petitioner. The State Commission Order along with this order be complied with by the respondent/opposite party within a period of 45 days. The complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 after the period of 45 days.
The revision petition No.293 of 2016 stands disposed of accordingly.