National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Vijaya Rashmi Developers vs Shri Parshuram Narayan Redij, on 17 April, 2013
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 1777 OF 2011
(Against order dated 15.10.2010 in Appeal
No. 1225 of 2008
of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharastra )
1. Vijaya Rashmi Developers
1, Madhur Malati, Jeevan Chhaya
Co-operative Housing Society, Paud Road,
Pune-411038 through its Partners
2. Shri Ravindera H. Mahajani
1, Madhur Malati, Jeevan Chhaya
Co-operative Housing Society, Paud Road,
Pune-411038
3. Shri Arun Harishchandra Nikam,
26, Sawroop Park Society, Near
Gandhi Bhavan, Kothrud,
Pune-411 029
4. Shri Zunzar Harishchandra Nikam,
26, Sawroop Park Society, Near
Gandhi Bhavan, Kothrud,
Pune-411 029 Petitioners
(Original Appellants/OP)
Versus.
Shri Parshuram Narayan Redij, Note: As per order dt. 30.8.12,
Flat No. 4, Vijaya Rashmi Residency, Respondent No. 1 ex-parte
Warje Malwadi, Pune-411 052
Sd/-
(D. R.
Rai)
(Court Master)
Respondent
No.1
(Original Resp./Complainant)
Vijaya Rashmi Residency Building Note: As
per order dt. 2.11.12,
A Co-operative Hosing Society Ltd, Respondent No.2, ex-parte
Survey No. 43/5, Warje Malwadi,
Pune411 052 Sd/-
(D. R.
Rai)
(Court
Master)
Respondent
No.2
(added as per order dt.
12.12.11)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR.
JUSTICE V. B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER
HONBLE MRS.
REKHA GUPTA, MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. Subodh Gokhale, Advocate
For the Respondents : Respondents No. 1 and 2 Ex
Parte
Dated : 17th April, 2013
ORDER
(ORAL)
Heard.
It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioners/OPs that they have already deposited the sum of Rs.35,000/- with the District Forum. Further, they have executed the sale deed of the flat in favour of the respondent no.1/complainant. The original sale deed has been sent to respondent no.1 by Registered Post and the same has been received by him.
2. It is further stated that execution of conveyance deed in favour of respondent no.2/society is not possible, since there was no prayer in the original complaint. As the petitioners have already complied with the directions passed by the District Forum, the claim of respondent no.1 stand satisfied.
3. Respondent no. 1 filed a consumer complaint against petitioners making the following prayers;
a It be decreed that the Sale Deed in respect of the Applicant should be executed.
b. It be decreed that the remaining work to be done at Survey No. 43/5 such as Road, Society internal road, security cabin, garden, club house, swimming pool be completed at the earliest.
4. District Forum, vide order dated 16.7.2008 partly allowed the complaint. It passed the following directions;
The Opposite Parties are jointly & severally directed to pay to the complainant, an amount of Rs.35,000/- together with interest thereon @ 9% p.a., as from 30/Oct./1999 till realization of sums by the Complainant.
The Opposite Parties are further directed to provide the amenities & facilities to the scheme, as described in the brochure.
The Opposite Parties are further directed to execute & duly register the deed of conveyance in favour of the registered society and the sale deed in favour of the Complainant, as per the relevant provisions of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963.
5. Aggrieved by the order of District Forum, petitioners filed appeal before the State Commission which partly allowed their appeal, vide its impugned order dated 15.10.2010. The operative portion of impugned order read as under;
(i) Appeal is partly allowed.
(ii) Impugned order is modified.
The direction, The Opposite Parties are further directed to provide the amenities & facilities to the scheme, as described in the brochure, is set aside.
(iii) Other part of the impugned order stands confirmed.
6 Not satisfied with the order of the State Commission, petitioners have filed this revision petition.
7. Direction given by the District Forum to the petitioners to execute and register the deed of conveyance in favour of the Society (Respondent no.2) can not be sustained, as respondent no.1 has not claimed any such relief in its complaint. The same is set aside accordingly.
8. Respondent has sent a letter dated 11.4.2013 to this Commission stating that the petitioner has executed the sale deed in his favour. However, as per order of the District Forum as well as State Commission, he is entitled to interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 30.10.1999 till its realization on the sum of Rs.35,000/-. Thus, respondent has prayed that the order with regard to the interest passed by the District Forum as well as State Commission should be maintained.
9. Since, petitioners have executed the sale deed in favour of respondent no.1 and which fact has been admitted by respondent no. 1, vide his letter dated 11.4.2013, the only question which remains for consideration is as to whether respondent no.1 is entitled to interest @ 9% p.a. on a sum of Rs.35,000/- with effect from 30.10.1999 till realization or not.
10. Though petitioners have deposited a sum of Rs.35,000/- with the District Forum, however, they have nowhere stated as on which date this amount had been deposited with the District Forum. Under these circumstances, petitioners are directed to pay to respondent no.1 interest @ 9% p.a. on a sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand) with effect from 30.10.1999 till the date of payment/deposit. In case they have already deposited, then they need not deposit. Petitioners are given eight weeks to pay/deposit the same. In case, petitioners fail to pay/deposit the aforesaid amount within the specified period, then respondent no.1 would be at liberty to recover the same in accordance with provisions of Section 25 read with Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
11. Present petition stands disposed of accordingly.
..J (V.B. GUPTA) ( PRESIDING MEMBER) (REKHA GUPTA) MEMBER SSB/04