AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This Appeal, under Section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), by the Opposite Party in the Complaint, is directed against the order dated 07.07.2011, passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Bangalore (for short "the State Commission") in Complaint Case No. 159 of 2010. By the impugned order, while allowing the Complaint filed by the Respondent herein, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Appellant in not getting the plot in question converted from agricultural to non-agricultural for commercial use; failing to obtain requisite sanctions from Bangalore Metropolitan Rural Development Authority (BMRDA) and Nelamangala Development Authority (NDA); and then in not selling the said plot to the Complainant in terms of agreement of absolute sale dated 03.04.2008, the State Commission has directed the Appellant to refund to the Complainant a sum of 15,00,000/-, deposited by him with the Appellant, with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of respective payments till realization and costs of litigation, quantified at 5,000/-. Since the execution of the aforesaid agreement of absolute sale and its tenor, which also stipulate refund of the deposited amount along with interest @ 3% p.a., if the said conversion was not possible, as also the fact that the Appellant has failed to perform the said agreement, is not in dispute, we deem it unnecessary to state the facts, giving rise to the filing of the Complaint. The main ground, on which the legality of the impugned order, is questioned is that the said agreement being a plain and simple agreement for sale of a piece of land against consideration, the Complaint under the Act was not maintainable, inasmuch as the Complainant was not a "consumer" within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act, as no "service" defined in Section 2(1)(o) of the Act was rendered by the Appellant to the Complainant. The other ancillary issue, raised on behalf of the Appellant, is that the rate of interest, on the principal amount directed to be refunded, as awarded by the State Commission, is highly excessive.
Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record, including the said agreement, though we do find some merit in the objection raised on behalf of the Appellant regarding the maintainability of the Complaint, yet, bearing in mind the fact that during the pendency of the present Appeal, the entire principal amount of 15,00,000/- already stands deposited by the Appellant in terms of orders dated 30.09.2011 and 16.03.2017, and out of the said amount a sum of 12,06,500/- has already been withdrawn by the Complainant, it is not a fit case for examining the afore-noted preliminary objection. As the matter of fact, when the matter came up for consideration on 05.10.2016, we had suggested to learned Counsel appearing for both the parties to seek instructions if the dispute, subject matter of the present Appeal, could be given a quietus by reducing the rate of interest from 18% p.a., as awarded by the State Commission, to 10% p.a. However, as per the instructions received by Counsel for the parties, the said proposal has not found favour with their respective clients.
Having bestowed our consideration to the facts at hand, we are of the opinion that the Appeal deserves to be partly allowed to the extent that the interest awarded by the State Commission deserves to be reduced. Accordingly, we partly allow the Appeal, with a direction that the Appellant shall pay to the Complainant interest @ 10% p.a. on the principal amount, from the date of respective deposits made by the Complainant with him till the date of respective deposits by the Appellant in terms of the afore-noted orders passed by this Commission. It will be open to the Complainant to withdraw the entire amount, including accrued interest, if any, lying in deposit in the State Commission. The deficiency in the amount payable in terms of this order shall be made good by the Appellant by remitting the said amount directly to the Complainant by means of a demand draft, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The statutory amount deposited by the Appellant at the time of filing of the Appeal shall stand transferred to the Consumer Welfare Fund by way of a Bank Draft drawn in favour of PAO, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, New Delhi. The Appeal stands disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.