M/s Jaiprakash Associates Ltd vs Chetna Tiwari & Anr

This appeal under section 19 of the Act 1986 is in challenge to the Order dated 09.10.2018 of the State Commission in complaint no. 397 of 2016.

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

The matter relates to a builder-buyer dispute.  Admittedly, an amount of Rs.39,00,000/- was paid by the complainants to the builder co. in the period from 10.06.2011 to 17.11.2011. The allotment was made on 06.08.2011. Possession of the subject unit was to be delivered within 42 months from the date of allotment. The builder co. failed to deliver possession within the committed period, or even within a reasonable period thence. The State Commission determined both ‘deficiency in service’ as well as ‘unfair trade practice’ on the part of the builder co. (“From the above discussions, this bench is of the view that the opposite party have committed deficiency in service and are involved in unfair trade practice too. The complainants have the right to get the refund of the deposited amount with interest @18% per annum from the date of respective deposits till the date of actual refund. The complainants are also entitled for compensation of Rs 20000/- for mental agony and litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/-. Hence the complaint deserves to be partially allowed”) And it made the following award:

The complaint is partially allowed. The opposite parties are directed to refund the total deposited amount of Rs.39,00,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum from the dates of respective deposits till the date of actual refund. The complainants are also entitled for compensation of Rs.20000/- for mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-. All these amounts shall be paid within a period of 45 days from the date of this Judgement and Order. No order to other costs.

Learned counsel for the builder co. does not assail the findings per se of the State Commission. He submits that the builder co.’s challenge is limited to the rate of interest of 18% per annum awarded by the State Commission, which, in its opinion, is unreasonably high. In this regard learned counsel submits that he has instructions that the builder co. is willing to refund the deposited amount with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.

Learned counsel for the complainants submits that the complainants have been put to undue loss and injury due to the patent deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the builder co. She further submits that to put a period to the lis and to end the sufferings of the complainants she has instructions to agree to rate of interest of 9% per annum, provided the payments are now made in an unencumbered and time-bound manner.

In the wake of the above submissions there is not much to adjudicate in this appeal. Findings of ‘deficiency in service’ and ‘unfair trade practice’ against the builder co., returned by the State commission, remain unassailed.  The appeal is disposed of with the direction that the builder co. shall refund an amount of Rs. 39,00,000/- to the complainants with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the respective dates of deposit till actual realization along with lumpsum compensation of Rs. 20,000/- for mental agony and Rs. 10,000/- for cost of litigation within six weeks from today.

The amount as any deposited by the builder co. with the State Commission in compliance of this Commission’s Order dated 24.06.2019 along with interest as any accrued thereon shall be forthwith released by the State Commission to the complainants towards satisfaction of the award as firmed-up herein. The residual amount as any shall be made good by the builder co. within six weeks from today, failing which the State Commission shall undertake execution, for ‘enforcement’ and for ‘penalty’, as per the law.

It is also made clear that in the contingency that the amount deposited by the builder co. with the State Commission in compliance of this Commission’s Order dated 24.06.2019 along with the interest accrued thereon turns out to be higher than the awarded amount the same shall be treated as full and final settlement, but in case it turns out to be lesser than the awarded amount the balance shall be made good by the builder co. within six weeks from today.

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.