AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
These revision petitions have been filed under section 21(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 20.03.2015 of the State Commission in appeals no. 45 and 50 of 2015 arising out of Orders dated 20.11.2014 of the District Forum in Complaints No. 298 and 301 of 2010.
Similar facts and same questions of law are involved in the present revision petitions as such they are being disposed of vide this common order.
The petitions have been filed with reported delay of 121 days. Learned counsel for the petitioners requests that the delay may be condoned. Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection, and submit that they would prefer putting a period to the lis by a decision on merit.
In the interest of justice, to provide fair opportunity to the petitioners, to decide the matter on merit rather than to dismiss it on the threshold of limitation, the delay in filing the petitions is condoned.
The matter relates to compensation for delay in delivering possession. The District Commission held the complainants to be entitled to penalty @ Rs.10/- per sq. ft. per month for the period of delay of 23 months i.e. an amount of Rs. 8,68,445/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till the date of Order and @ 9% p.a. from the date of Order till its realization. Rs. 5,000/- were awarded towards costs.
Aggrieved the petitioners preferred appeals before the State Commission. State Commission dismissed both the appeals.
Now come the present revision petitions against that concurrent findings of the Fora below.
The learned counsel for both the sides submit that in substantially similar matters the coordinate bench has already adjudicated the issue and passed its Order. Attention has been drawn to the Order dated 23.08.2022 passed by coordinate Bench of this Commission in Revision Petition No. 1772 of 2015 titled as “Sahara India Commercial Corporation Vs. Taresh Bhatia.” The relevant extracts of the operative portion of the Order has been quoted as follows:
“12. Also the grant of interest of interest @ 18% p.a. is towards higher side and against the various pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court including directions in “DLF Homes Panchkula Limited vs. D. S. Dhanda etc. (2020) 16 SCC 318 and “Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sushma Ashok Shiroor, 2022 SCC Online SC 416”. In Sushma Ashok’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:
“33. At the same time, we are of the opinion that the interest of 9 per cent granted by the Commission is fair and just and we find no reason to interfere in the appeal filed by the consumer for enhancement of interest.”
In view of the above, while partly allowing the Revision Petition, following directions are issued:
(i) The Respondent/Complainant is entitled to penalty @ ₹10/- per sq.ft. per month for the period from 31.01.2007 to 15.04.2008, alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. on the payable amount from the date of filing of the Complaint till the date of deposit with the District Forum;
(ii) Litigation costs of ₹5,000/- imposed by the District Forum shall also be paid to the Complainant; and
(iii) Complainant is also entitled for the litigation costs of ₹20,000/- in this Revision Petition.
Learned Counsel for the Complainant submits that the amount is lying deposited with the District Forum. Out of that amount, the amount payable pursuant to this order shall be released to the Complainant/Respondent on his application.
Submission of both the learned counsel is that the impugned Order may be accordingly modified in terms of the order that was passed by the coordinate bench in the afore-mentioned revision petition. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is very precise and is confined only to the extent of rate of interest that has been awarded by the State Commission which according to her is on the higher side and unreasonable. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has been fair enough to admit that the matter referred to above is substantially similar and he, on instructions, expressed its consent on the rate of interest in terms of the Order of the coordinate bench passed in substantially similar matters. Further submission of the learned counsel for petitioners is that the date that was promised for the purpose of delivering possession was 03.04.2006 in RP No. 3017 of 2015 and 05.04.2006 in RP No. 3018 of 2015 while the deed of declaration before the office of Registrar was executed on 27.03.2008 in both the revision petitions. Submission is that the penalty may be awarded only with regard to the aforesaid period. Learned counsel for the respondents too agrees with the afore-said submission with regard to period for which the penalty has to be awarded. Both the sides agree on the interest at the rate of 9% on the payable amount.
On a specific query raised by the Bench neither of the learned counsel have been able to correctly apprise about the deposit of money, if any, with the State Commission and its exact amount or date.
In view of the afore-mentioned Order passed by the coordinate bench and also keeping in view the specific facts and circumstances of the case the impugned Orders in both the revision petitions stand modified as follows:
(i) The Respondents/Complainants are entitled to penalty @ ₹10/- per sq.ft. per month for the period of delay in possession (i.e. 23 months), alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. on the payable amount from the date of filing of the Complaint till the date of its realization;
(ii) Litigation costs of ₹5,000/- imposed by the District Forum shall also be paid to the Complainants.
The entire payment shall be made within six weeks from today. It goes without saying that amount, if any, deposited with the District Commission and the accrued interest thereupon, if any, shall be duly adjusted. In the event of failure of the petitioners to comply with the Order the complainants would be at liberty to approach the executing court for recovery of the same. On receipt of such an execution application the District Commission shall undertake execution, for ‘enforcement’ and for ‘penalty’, as per the law.
The petitions stand disposed of accordingly.
Let the copy of this Order be placed on file of each revision petition.
The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the petitions and to their learned counsel within three days. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.