Pawan Kumar Bansal vs M/S. Shipra Estate Ltd. & Anr

This appeal has been filed by the appellant, Pawan Kumar Bansal against the order dated 22.1.2015 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh (for short, State Commission) in CC No. 145 of 2014.

Brief facts of the case are that on 21.10.2011 the project of the respondents was launched by the respondent company in Taj Hotel, Chandigarh in the dinner meeting organized by the broker of the respondents. In 2011 the appellant got property No. R4-B15-SF in the Capital Vila at Zirakpur (Punjab) by depositing Rs.5 lacs through P.C. Properties, Sector-35, Chandigarh i.e. the broker of the respondents. In 2012 appellant further deposited 15% of the amount with the respondents vide cheque dated 1.6.2012 and 10% of the basic sale price deposited within 90 days of the allotment letter amounting to Rs.6,43,151/-. Thus, the appellant deposited a total amount of Rs.16,07,876/- i.e. 25% of the cost of the property. On 6.11.2012 agreement regarding the above property was entered into between the parties. The possession of the above said property was to be delivered latest by 16.4.2014 by the respondents to the appellant. On 29.4.2014, legal notice was served upon the respondents by the appellant which was returned as 'unclaimed'. Aggrieved against the inaction of the respondents the appellant filed complaint on 29.10.2014 with the State Commission. Written reply was filed on 17.12.2014 by the respondents to the complaint of the appellant. Rejoinder was filed by the appellant on 19.12.2014. On 22.1.2015 the State Commission passed the impugned order by partly accepting the complaint as under:-

"19. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted, with costs and the Respondents are directed in the following manner:-

Respondents are directed to refund an amount of Rs.16,07,876/- to the complainant alongwith interest @10% per annum from the respective dates of deposits, within a period of two months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

Respondents are further directed to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant, as compensation, for mental agony and physical harassment within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order;

Respondents are further directed to pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.5,000/-, to the complainant.

In case the payment of amounts, as mentioned in Clauses (i) and (ii) above, is not made, within the stipulated period, then Respondents shall be liable to pay the amount mentioned in clause (i) with interest @12% per annum, instead of 10% per annum, from the date of default, till realization, and the amount of compensation as mentioned in Clause (ii) shall be payable with interest @12% per annum from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 31.10.2014 till actual realization, besides payment of cost, to the tune of Rs.5,000/-."

Heard the appellant in person and the learned counsel for the respondents. The appellant states that the State Commission has allowed refund of the deposited amount of Rs.16,07,876/- alongwith only 10% p.a. interest from the date of respective deposits till actual payment, whereas the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Commission have been ordering refund with 18% p.a. interest. Similarly, the State Commission has awarded only a compensation of Rs.50,000/- which is very meagre as compared to the mental agony and harassment suffered by the petitioner. It was stated by the petitioner that the petitioner deposited the installments as demanded in accordance with the allotment letter in good faith but there was no progress in the construction of the building and therefore, there was no question of further paying any amount to the respondent. It was further argued that as per clause 8.3 of the agreement the builder is charging 18% p.a. interest on the delayed instalments and therefore, the appellant/complainant is also entitled to the same interest rate on refund.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent stated that the State Commission has considered all the issues in detail and has passed a reasonable order in the facts and circumstances of the case. Due compensation in the form of interest has been granted to the complainant and therefore, there was no ground for awarding any separate compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant. However, as the respondents have not filed any appeal against the order of the State Commission, the respondents are ready to comply with the impugned order. 10% p.a. interest is quite reasonable and it cannot be equated with the interest mentioned under clause 8.3 of the agreement because that is interest asked by the builder on the delayed instalments which the complainant is duty bound to deposit within time. The money paid under instalment is utilized for construction of the building and therefore, 18% p.a. interest is justified on the delayed instalments, whereas the respondents have not earned any interest on the deposited amount and therefore, the respondents are not duty bound to give any interest on the deposited amount under the agreement. However, now the State Commission has ordered 10% p.a. interest on the deposited amount as the money has remained with the respondents for some time, the respondents have no objection in paying this interest, however, there is no justification for increasing this rate of interest.

I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by both sides and have examined the record.

This Commission, off late, has been awarding interest on deposited amount ranging from 9% p.a. to 12% p.a. depending upon the facts and circumstances of an individual case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Protection Manufacturers Private Limited, (2010) 7 SCC 386, has observed as under:

"We also accept the discretion exercised by the National Commission regarding the rate of interest awarded from three months after the date of the Award. The submissions made on behalf of the Respondent Company for enhancement of the same is rejected as we are of the view that such exercise of discretion was just and equitable in the absence of any agreement between the parties regarding payment of interest or the quantum thereof."

Based on the above judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear that the concerned Commission has the discretion to grant interest on the deposited amount and the higher courts would not like to interfere with that interest rate until there is some illegality or material irregularity in the order itself. In the present case, 10% p.a. interest appears to be quite reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Moreover, the State Commission has also awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and harassment. Thus, the appellant/complainant has been adequately compensated for the deficiency on the part of the respondents/OPs.

Based on the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the appeal which calls for any interference from this Commission and therefore, the FA No.165 of 2015 is dismissed.