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 06.10.2016 of the State Commission in complaint no. 67 of 2016.
Learned counsel for the appellants (the ‘builder co.’) and the learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 (the ‘complainant’) make their submissions. Respondent no. 1 (the ‘complainant’) present in person also makes his submissions.
Perused the record.
The matter pertains to a builder-buyer dispute. The award made by the State Commission as contained in para 14 of its impugned Order dated 06.10.2016 is reproduced below for reference:
For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted with costs. Opposite parties No. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally held liable, and directed as under:-
i) To refund the amount Rs. 34,20,000/- to the complainant, alongwith interest @12% per annum, from the respective dates of deposits, till realization, within 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
ii) To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-, for deficiency in rendering service, indulgence into unfair trade practice and causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainant, by them within 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
iii) To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant.
iv) The cancellation notice dated 10.03.2016 (Annexure R-7) issued by the Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2, being null and void, is set aside.
v) In case, the payment of amounts, mentioned in Clauses (i) and (ii), is not made, within the stipulated period, then they (Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2), shall be liable to pay the amount mentioned in Clauses (i) with interest @ 15% P.A., instead of 12% P.A., from the respective dates of deposits, till realization, and interest @ 12% P.A., on the amount of compensation, mentioned in Clause (ii), from the date of filing the complaint, till realisation, besides payment of costs of litigation.
Learned counsel for the builder co. submits, on instructions, that the builder co. is willing to refund the amount of Rs. 34,20,000/- deposited by the complainant with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the respective date(s) of deposit till actual realisation along with lumpsum compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and cost of litigation of Rs. 50,000/-. 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 22.09.2017 along with interest if any accrued thereon may be forthwith released to the complainant and the balance awarded amount will be made good within twelve 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 counsel for the complainant submits, on instructions, that the afore terms are acceptable to the complainant. Complainant 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. 34,20,000/- deposited by the complainant with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the respective date(s) of deposit till actual realisation along with lumpsum compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- and cost of litigation of Rs. 50,000/-. The amount as any deposited by the builder co. with the State Commission in compliance of this Commission’s interlocutory Order dated 22.09.2017 along with interest if any accrued thereon shall be forthwith released by the State Commission to the complainant. The balance awarded amount shall be made good by the builder co. within twelve 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.