Silver City Housing & Infrastructure Limited& 4 Ors vs Pratibha Sharma

Present Appeals have been filed against the orders dated 19.3.2019, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission"), by which the Consumer Complaints No.795 and 797 of 2018 have been allowed and the Appellants herein have been directed to refund the amount of 22,87,470/- along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the different dates of deposits of different amounts till the date of actual payment and compensation of 35,000/- on account of mental tension and harassment suffered by the Complainants.

As per the office report, there has been a delay of 113 days in filing of the present Appeals. We have heard learned Counsel for the Appellants and perused the averments made in the Application seeking condonation of delay. Sufficient reasons have been given in the Application seeking condonation of delay. The Applications are allowed and the delay is condoned. The Appeals be treated as having been filed within limitation.

Learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that the Complaints preferred by the Complainants/Respondents herein were barred by limitation, as Ms.Pratibha Sharma, the Complainant/Respondent in FA/2060/2019 had sent a letter on 2.2.2015 seeking refund of the entire amount with interest and therefore the period of two years has to be reckoned from 2.2.2015 whereas the Complaint was filed by Ms.Pratibha Sharma on 8.10.2018. He has relied upon a decision of this Commission in Sipra Thomes through Ms.Sriya Coomer vs. Bengal Unitech Universal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. - 2016(3) CLT 36. According to the documents filed along with the Appeal we find that even though the Complainants had sent a letter on 2.2.2015 asking the Appellants to refund the entire amount deposited by them along with interest failing which legal action will be taken, the Appellants had issued a letter dated 8.10.2016 (Pg.144/pb.) asking the Complainants/Respondents to taken possession of the Apartments by paying the balance amount of 4,82,730/-. Apart from this, from the ledger account filed by the Appellants (Pg.143/Pb.) we find that the ledger account consists of entries up to 31.3.2019. Be that as it may, in view of the letter of possession dated 8.10.2016, sent by the Appellants to the Complainants, the limitation gets extended and has to be reckoned from the date when the possession was offered and the Complainant was asked to deposit the balance amount of 4,82,730/-. The Complaints filed on 8.10.2018, i.e. just within two years of the date when the possession letter was issued. We, therefore, reject the contention of the Appellants that the Complaints were barred by limitation.

So far as the question regarding refund of the entire amount deposited by the Complainants/Respondents herein is concerned, we find that it is not in dispute that the Complainants/Respondents have deposited 25,84,970/- (by Ms.Pratibha Sharma) and 22,87,470/- (by Ms.Annu Rani Sharma) respectively. The only question which has been raised is that the rate of interest of 12% awarded by the State Commission is highly excessive. From a perusal of the impugned order passed by the State Commission, we find that the State Commission has relied upon the provisions of Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (for short "the PAPRA Act"), which specifically provides that the Builder is liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum from the date of receipt of the amount till the date of payment. Rule 17 of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulations Rules, 1995, framed under Section 45 of the PAPRA is reproduced below for ready reference :

"17. Rate of interest on refund of advance money upon cancellation of agreement - The promoter shall refund full amount collected from the prospective buyers under sub-section (1) of Section 6 together with interest thereon at the rate of twelve per cent per annum payable from the date of receipt of amount so collected till the date of re-payment."

It is not in dispute that the provisions of the PAPRA and the Rules framed thereunder are applicable in the present case. The State Commission having referred the provisions of PAPRA and the Rules framed thereunder, while granting interest @ 12% cannot be said to have any error of law. The order passed by the State Commission is based on appreciation of evidence and material on record and it cannot be said that the finding recorded by the State Commission is in any way illegal or perverse.

Consequently, we do not find any merit in these Appeals and the same are dismissed.