National Consumer Disputes Redressal
M/S. Sunit Enterprises & Anr. vs Shri Mohanlal N. Jogi & Anr. on 8 October, 2012
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1199 OF 2011 (From the order dated 11.10.2010 in F.A. No.1080/2010 of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai) 1. M/s. Sunit Enterprises A Partnership Firm having its registered Office at 7, Dalvi Hospital, S.V. Road, Kandivili (W), Mumbai 400 067 2. Shri Haresh Mohanlal Joshi Partner of M/s. Sunit Enterprises Residing at A/101, Amazon Park, Jayraj Nagar, Borivili (W), Mumbai - 400092 Petitioners/Complainants Versus 1. Shri Mohanlal N. Jogi Flat No. 401, Smruti CHS Ltd. M.G. Cross Road No. 4, Kandivili (W), Mumbai 400 067 Respondent-1/OP1 2. Shri Mitesh M. Jogi Flat No. 401, Smruti CHS Ltd. M.G. Cross Road No.4, Kandivili (W), Mumbai 400 067 Respondent-2/OP2 & REVISION PETITION NO. 1200 OF 2011 (From the order dated 11.10.2010 in F.A. No.1081/2010 of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai) 1. M/s. Sunit Enterprises A Partnership Firm having its registered Office at 7, Dalvi Hospital, S.V. Road, Kandivili (W), Mumbai 400 067 2. Shri Haresh Mohanlal Joshi Partner of M/s. Sunit Enterprises Residing at A/101, Amazon Park, Jayraj Nagar, Borivili (W), Mumbai - 400092 Petitioners/Complainants Versus Shri ChampakLal N. Jogi Flat No. 903, Smruti CHS Ltd. M.G. Cross Road No. 4, Kandivili (W), Mumbai 400 067 Respondent/OP BEFORE: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MR. SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER For the Petitioners in both the matters : Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate For the Respondents in both the matters : Mr. Anand Patwardhan, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON 8th OCTOBER, 2012 O R D E R
PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER These revision petitions have been filed by the petitioners-Complainants against the order dated 11.10.2010 passed by the learned Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (in short, the State Commission) in F.A.No. 1080/2010 M/s. Sunit Enterprises & Anr. Vs. Mohanlal N. Jogi & Anr. and in F.A. No. 1081/2010 - M/s. Sunit Enterprises & Anr. Vs. Champaklal N. Jogi by which both the appeals were dismissed in limine and orders passed by the District Forum were upheld.
2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioners/complainants filed separate complaints before the District Forum and alleged that one flat was booked for Rs.17,00,000/- with the OP-petitioner out of which Rs.15,50,000/- / Rs.8,50,000 were paid and as per agreement, OP was to handover possession of the flat on 31.12.2000 and this period was extended for another 3 years but possession was not handed over, hence, complainants filed complaints before the District Forum praying possession of the flat and in the alternate to refund money along with 24% p.a. interest. Learned District Forum while allowing complaints ordered to refund Rs.15,50,000/- / Rs. 8,50,000/- along with 18% interest p.a. from the date of payment till realization. Petitioner challenged order of the District forum before the State Commission and the learned State Commission vide impugned orders dismissed appeals in limine and uphold the order awarding 18% p.a. interest.
3. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that he was and is ready to return money with 9% p.a. interest and learned State Commission has committed error in upholding the order of 18% p.a. interest whereas Section 34 CPC provides grant of 6% p.a. interest and MOFA Act provides 9% p.a. interest and Honble Apex Court in most of the cases has awarded only 12% p.a. interest, hence, petition may be accepted and rate of interest may be modified to 9% p.a. from 18% p.a. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that looking in to the nature and circumstances of the case award of 18% p.a. interest is most appropriate and even this rate of interest will not be sufficient to meet inflationary trend.
5. It is an admitted position that one complainant paid Rs.15,50,000/- in the year 2000 out of Rs.17,00,000/- and another complainant paid Rs.8,50,000/- in the year 2000 out of Rs.17,00,000/- payable for the flat and they were to receive possession by the end of 2000, but could not get possession and were compelled to institute complaint. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that flat could not be completed as Municipal Corporation had stopped work but record reveals that construction work was stopped due to fault on the part of the petitioner himself as he constructed 3 to 6 floors against permission of 2 floors of the Wing A and B and in spite of notice failed to remove unauthorized construction and in such circumstances, construction of proposed flat in D Wing was stopped by Municipal Authorities.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is prepared to return the money along with 9% p.a. interest, but District Forum has committed error by awarding 18% p.a. interest.
He placed reliance on 2008 CTJ 920 (SC) HUDA Vs. Raj Singh Rana in which Honble Apex Court observed that the rate of interest is to be fixed in the circumstances of each case and it should not be imposed at a uniform rate without looking into the circumstances leading to a situation where compensation was required to be paid. It was further observed that interest must not ordinarily exceed the current rate of interest. He also placed reliance on 253 CTJ (SC) HUDA Vs. Munshi Ram, 2005 CTJ 17 (SC) HUDA Vs. Smt. Amarjit Kaur and 2007 CTJ 81 (SC) Alok Shaker Pandey Vs. Union of India & Ors. in which award of 12% p.a. interest was held appropriate. He also placed reliance on 2005 CTJ 465 HUDA Vs. Soma Devi and 2008 CTJ 206 (SC) Manjul Srivastava Vs. Government of U.P. and others in which 18% p.a. interest was held proper.
7. Perusal of aforesaid citations reveals that there cannot be uniform rate of interest and award of interest depends on facts and circumstances of each case. In the case in hand, petitioner should have returned money immediately when the construction work was stopped by the Municipal Authorities along with 9% p.a. interest but he failed to do so and even till today he has not refunded this money to the complainant-respondent. We are of the view that if money is to be refunded within a period of 5 years, normally, interest @ 12% p.a. to 15% p.a. should be sufficient, but if money is to be returned after 5 years, award of interest @ 18% p.a. cannot be treated on higher side which can be explained by an illustration.
8. If a person deposits Rs.100/- with 12% compounded interest for 6 years, he will get Rs.200/- after 6 years and Rs.400/- after 12 years, whereas if Rs.100/- is to be refunded along with 18% simple interest after 6 years, he will get Rs.208/- and if it is to be refunded after 12 years, he will get only Rs.316/-.
9. Aforesaid illustration makes it clear that even refund of money along with 18% simple interest would be less than 12% compound interest rather it will be between 10 to 10.5% p.a. compound interest which a person easily gets in fixed deposit from bank. In such circumstances, return of money after 12 years along with 18% p.a. simple interest is most reasonable and cannot said to be on higher side and petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed.
10. Consequently, petitions filed by the petitioners are dismissed with no order as to costs.
.Sd/-
( K.S. CHAUDHARI, J) PRESIDING MEMBER ..Sd/-
( SURESH CHANDRA ) MEMBER k