AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This appeal has been filed under section 19 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 20.05.2019 of the State Commission in complaint no. 1113 of 2016.
We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant (the ‘builder co.’) and the respondent (the ‘complainant’) in person. We have also perused the record including inter alia the impugned Order dated 20.05.2019 of the State Commission and the memorandum of appeal.
The matter pertains to a builder-buyer dispute.
Admitted facts are that the complainant had booked a residential flat with the builder co. for a total consideration of Rs. 43,64,565/-. He paid a total amount of Rs. 41,76,080/- to the builder co. during the period from 02.02.2013 to 23.10.2015.
The State Commission vide its Order of 20.05.2019 has ordered the builder co. to refund an amount of Rs. 43,64,565/- deposited by the complainant with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the respective dates of payment till the date of actual realisation along with Rs. 50,000/- as cost of litigation. Its award as contained in the paragraph 16 of its Order is reproduced below for reference:
In view of the above discussion the OP is directed to refund Rs. 43,64,565/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of respective payments till the date of refund & Rs. 50,000/- as litigation cost.
(as per the certified copy of the impugned Order of the State Commission)
Learned counsel for the builder co. submits that in fact only an amount of Rs. 41,76,080/- was paid by the complainant and as such there is a clerical mistake in the State Commission’s award wherein it has ordered for refund of Rs. 43,64,565/-.
The complainant in person fairly submits that he has no objection to this mistake in the figure being rectified.
That being as it may, we note that the State Commission has otherwise passed a well-appraised reasoned Order, aptly dealing with the issues germane to the dispute.
We do not see the need to critique the Order of the State Commission in any great length since learned counsel for the builder co. does not object to refund of the amount of Rs. 41,76,080/- deposited by the complainant and his only contention is regarding the rate of 12% per annum at which the interest has been awarded by the State Commission. The same in his view is unreasonably high. His submission is that a rate of interest of 9% per annum would be reasonable.
On this count the complainant submits that to finance his intended acquisition he had taken a loan of Rs. 23 lakh from a bank with interest at the rate of 9.5% per annum to be compounded monthly. He submits that considering the same, as also all the troubles and travails he has been put to, the uncertainty and difficulty he has been continuously facing, the rate of 12% per annum awarded by the State Commission is by all means reasonable.
Needless to say that the compensation has to be just and equitable, commensurate with the loss and injury suffered.
In the present case, admittedly, booking for a residential unit was made in 2013, a total amount of Rs. 41,76,080/- was paid between 2013 to 2015, the complainant had taken a loan of Rs. 23 lakh from a bank on interest at the rate of 9.5% per annum compounded monthly.
In the overall facts and circumstances we do not feel that the State Commission has been either over-indulgent or has lost sight of its duty to judiciously work out reasonable compensation to balance the scales of equity. We do not find in the order any element of capricious or whimsical exercise of its judicious discretion. Nor do we see any patent arbitrariness or unreasonableness or any visible lack of application of mind in it. We certainly do not see any element of disproportion in its award, much less than noticing any absurdity or perversity in it.
We do not see any reason to take a different view of the matter than what has been taken by the State Commission, especially when seen that the complainant had also serviced a loan with interest at the rate of 9.5% per annum compounded monthly.
We find no merit per se in the appeal. The mistake in the amount to be refunded is however rectified in that the said amount shall be Rs. 41,76,080/- in place of Rs. 43,64,565/-. Rest of the award remains undisturbed.
The award 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.
So disposed.
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 within three days. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.