Shrikrushna Godghate vs M/s. Tiwari Land Developers Coporation

Avm J. Rajendra, Avsm Vsm (Retd.), Presiding Member

These twenty Revision Petitions No.1690 to 1709 of 2019 have been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) by the Petitioners/ Complainants challenging the Impugned orders dated 16.03.2019, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Nagpur Circuit bench (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), pertaining to twenty First Appeal Nos. A/18/120 to A/18/138 & A/18/177. The State Commission, in response to these twenty Appeals filed by the Petitioners/Complainants, partly upheld the impugned orders. However, it modified clause No.2 of the operative part, specifically altering the interest rate from 4% p.a. to 12% p.a. on the refunded amount, while affirming the remaining portions of the order issued on 30.12.2017 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Wardha (referred to as the “District Forum”), in the twenty Consumer Complaints lodged by the Original Complainants.

There was a delay of 25 days in the filing of these twenty Revision Petitions. For the reasons stated in the applications and in the interest of justice, the delay is condoned.

Since the facts and questions of law involved in all the Revision Petitions are substantially similar, except for minor variations in dates, events and unit/ plot number, these Revision Petitions are being disposed of by this common Order. To facilitate clarity and convenience, Revision Petition No. 1690/2019 shall be considered as the primary / lead case, with the facts outlined below being extracted from Consumer Complaint No. 61/2014.

For the convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum & State Commission.

In brief, the Complainants, residing in Wardha, decided to purchase plots from the Lay-out of the Opposite Party (OP), who is a partner of Tiwari Land Developers Corporation. The OP purchased agricultural lands in Mouja Sindhi (Meghe) and made a layout with 110 plots, including Plot Nos. 8-A and 3, which the Complainant decided to purchase. The complainant paid Rs. 500/- for each plot as per independent Earnest Notes executed on 07/05/1989. Subsequently, he made further payments totaling Rs. 1,500/- for each plot, with the remaining balance to be paid at the time of registration of sale deeds. The OP assured execution of sale deeds within six months after sanctioning the layout. However, the layout faced obstacles due to being in a green zone, and, despite assurances, the OP failed to obtain the required sanctions. Meetings were arranged over the years, but no progress was made, and the OP attempted to increase the plot prices. After 24 years of waiting, the Complainant issued a legal notice on 07.03.2014, expressing readiness to pay the remaining amount and requesting execution of sale deeds. Despite this, the OP took no action. Feeling aggrieved, he filed a CC No. 61/2014, seeking the execution of sale deeds or refund at current market rates, along with compensation sum of Rs.50,000/- towards harassment and Rs.10,000/- towards costs.

In response, the OP resisted each of the said consumer complaint by filing its written version before the District Forum.

The learned District Forum vide Order dated 30.12.2017 allowed the complaint in part with the following order

“//FINAL ORDER//

Complaint of the complainant is partly allowed.

The O.P. total amount of Rs. 3000/- deposited by the complainant for Plot No.8-A and Plot No. 3 with interest @ 4 p.c.p.a. from 26/12/1990 till actual payment.

For the physical and mental harassment caused to the complainant due to deficiency in service, the O.P. shall pay compensation of Rs. 1,000/-.

Towards cost of the said complaint, the O.P. shall pay Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant.

The O.P. shall comply the said order within 30 days from passing of the order.”

(Extracted from True Translated copy)

Being aggrieved by the Order of the District forum, the Appellant / Complainant filed an Appeal No. A/18/120 before the State Commission. The learned State Commission vide Order dated 16.03.2019 upheld the impugned order. However, it modified Clause No.2 of the operative part, specifically altering the interest rate from 4% p.a. to 12% p.a. on the refunded amount, while affirming the remaining with the following order:-

“ORDER

I.  All these appeals bearing Nos. A/18/120 to A/18/138 & A/18/177 are partly allowed as under:

The directions given under clause No. 2 of the operative part respective impugned orders about refund of part of the prices is modified and substituted to the effect that the amount mentioned in clause No. 2 of the operative part of the impugned order be refunded by the respondent to the appellants with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the respective dates mentioned in the said clause No. 2 of the operative part of the impugned orders till realization of the same by the respective appellants.

II. The rest of the directions given under clause Nos. 3,4 and 5 of the impugned orders regarding payment of compensation of Rs. 1,000/- for physical and mental harassment and litigation cost of Rs. 1,000/- and making compliance of the impugned order within 30 days of the receipt of copy of the impugned orders are maintained.

III. No order as to cost in these appeals.

IV. Copy of the present order be furnished to both parties, free of cost.”

The Petitioner/ Complainant, dissatisfied with the Impugned Order dated 16.03.2019 passed by the State Commission, has filed the Revision Petition No. 1690 of 2019 with the following prayer:-

a)  Call for the record of the First Appeal No. A-2018/123 titled as "Shrikrushna Godghate Vs. M/s. Tiwari Land Developers” decided by the State Commission, Circuit Bench, Nagpur on 16.03.2019;

b)  After perusal of the said record, the impugned Order/Judgment dt. 16.03.2019, may kindly be quashed and set aside, passed by the Hon'ble Commission, Circuit Bench, Nagpur and direct the Respondent to the remaining balance amount as per agreement dt. 07/05/89 and execute  the sale deed of Plot No. 3 & 8-A in favour of petitioner.

OR

Refund the entire cost of said plot admeasuring area 1640 Sq. Ft., each as per the prevailing Market i.e. Rs.400/- per sq. ft., alongwith interests @ 18 % p.a. till its realization in the interest of justice.

c)  Direct the respondent to pay Rs.50,000/- in respect of physical harassment and mental agony to petitioner.

d)  Direct the respondent to pay Rs.30,000/- to the petitioner as the expenses occurred for trail court as well as for the present appeal proc ceding.

AND/OR

Any other order/relief or direction which this Hon'ble Commission may deem fit, just and proper in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances ma> also kindly be granted in favour of the Petitioner.

Upon notice to the instant Revision Petition, the Respondent appeared and filed respective written submissions.

In his arguments, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner had contended that the State Commission appreciated the fact that OP is liable for deficiency in service but failed to accurately assess the damages incurred by the Complainant due to the OP's failure to adhere to the agreement. The State Commission erred in granting compensation to the Complainant by merely allowing the complaint and instructing the OP to refund the earnest money of Rs.2000/- since 23.01.1991 for Plot No. 11,12,14/A, and Rs.1500/- for Plot No. 19 since 31/05/1990, with interest at 12% per annum until realization, in addition to Rs.1000/- for physical and mental distress and Rs.1000/- for costs. Consequently, the State Commission overlooked the specific Prayer Clause in the Original Complaint and issued various directives that were neither requested by the Complainant nor specified in the agreement or the Complainant's rights. Therefore, the impugned order is flawed and should be set aside.

On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Respondent argued that in accordance with the order issued by the District Forum, the Respondent duly deposited the required amount along with the applicable interest on 25.01.2018. Subsequently, upon the Petitioner/ Complainant filing an Appeal before the State Commission, the State Commission raised the interest rate from 4% to 12%. Consequently, in compliance with the directive issued by the State Commission, the Respondent deposited the enhanced interest charges on 30.04.2019. As such, there exists no substantial irregularity in the orders passed by both lower forums. Therefore, the Revision Petitions filed by the respective petitioners ought to be dismissed with costs. The Counsel has relied upon the following judgments to support his arguments: -

a. M/s. Siddhyvinayak Infrastructire vs. Kamalakar Jayant Srivastava, Civil Appeal No. 5208/2022 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 11938/2021.

b. Sunil Kumar Maity vs. State Bank of India, 2022 LiveLaw(SC) 77.

I have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both the parties

The only question for consideration is the tenability of the compensation determined and awarded by the learned State Commission with respect to the established deficiency in service rendered by the OP.

As regards the rate of interest and scope of payment of compensation in such matters, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sushma Ashok Shiroor, in Civil Appeal No.6044 of 2019 decided on 7.4.2022, has held as under:-

“We are of the opinion that for the interest payable on the amount deposited to be restitutionary and also compensatory, interest has to be paid from the date of the deposit of the amounts.  The Commission in the Order impugned has granted interest from the date of last deposit.  We find that this does not amount to restitution. Following the decision in DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DS Dhanda and in modification of the direction issued by the Commission, we direct that the interest on the refund shall be payable from the dates of deposit. Therefore, the Appeal filed by purchaser deserves to be partly allowed. The interest shall be payable from the dates of such deposits.

At the same time, we are of the opinion that the interest of 9% granted by the Commission is fair and just.”

In the present case, there has been protracted lapse of time in the Complainants agitating their grievances and the learned State Commission has granted the enhanced relief as stated above. The order passed by the learned State Commission has been accepted and already complied with by the Opposite Party. With due regard to the legal position of the case and the established precedents, there is no scope for further compensation for the Complainants in the matter.

In view of the foregoing discussions, all the 20 Revision Petitions Nos.1690 to 1709 of 2019 are Dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

All pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.