National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs Pooran Lal on 6 April, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2019 OF 2010 (Against the Order dated 18/02/2010 in Appeal No. 168/2008 of the State Commission Uttaranchal) 1. KUMAON MANDAL VIKAS NIGAM LTD. Through Managing Director, Oak Park House, Malli Tal Nainital Uttarakhand ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. POORAN LAL Resident of Village Koon, Post Office Bhawali, Tehsil and District Nainital Nainital Uttarakhan ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. U.K. Uniyal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sunil Singh Parihar, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate Dated : 06 Apr 2015 ORDER ORDER (After Lunch) Respondent/complainant was allotted a shop by the Petitioner/Opposite party. As per the terms and conditions of the allotment, respondent was to be allotted a shop soon after deposit of the final instalment. According to the respondent, possession of shop was given to him on 18.9.2006, after the delay of 19 months and 20 days of the deposit of the last instalment. Hence, a consumer complaint was filed by the respondent before the District Forum seeking compensation for delay in handing over the possession.
2. Petitioner contested the complaint. In its written statement, petitioner took the plea that possession of shop was to be given, after completion of the construction work and not immediately as alleged by the respondent.
3. District Forum vide its order dated 28.6.2008, partly allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- by way of compensation besides Rs.2,000/- as cost.
4. Not satisfied with the order of the District Forum, respondent filed appeal before the State Commission.
5. It may be pertinent to point out, that petitioner did not challenge the order passed by the District Forum. Hence, the same has become final qua it.
6. The State Commission vide impugned order, partly allowed the appeal of the respondent and directed the petitioner to pay interest @ 15% per annum on the deposited amount of Rs.7 lakh from 10.10.2005.
7. Against the order of the State Commission, present revision has been filed by the petitioner.
8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, that State Commission was not justified in placing reliance on the decision in the case of Shri Charu Kholia Vs. Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam & Ors. passed in First Appeal No.125 of 2005 decided on 7.6.2006. On the other hand, decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Bangalore Development Authority Vs. Syndicate Bank in Civil Appeal No. 5462 of 2002 decided on 17.5.2007, is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
9. On the other hand, it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that as per the terms and conditions, after deposit of the instalment amount, petitioner had to deliver the possession. Since, there was delay in handing over the possession of the shop to the respondent, the State Commission rightly awarded interest. Moreover, it is unfair trade practice on the part of the petitioner not to give the actual date of possession.
10. District Forum in its order has categorically held, that there has been deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner as there was delay in handing over the possession of the shop. This finding that there is deficiency on the part of the petitioner, has become final as it was never challenged by the respondent before the State Commission.
11. Be that as it may, as per the terms and conditions of allotment of shop, possession of the shop was to be given only after final instalment is deposited. Petitioner in its terms and conditions for allotment of the shop, has cleverly not mentioned the date of possession, after the final instalment has been deposited. On the other hand, as per mode of the payment, in case the instalments are not paid on time, then maximum three moths' notice was to be given to deposit the due amount but subject to an additional interest of 18% which had to be paid along with the instalment amount.
12. The fact that petitioner has not given the actual date of handing over the possession after having accepted the entire amount, amounts to an unfair trade practice as defined in section 2(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The relevant clause of this section read as under:-
"(r) "unfair trade practice" means a trade practice which, for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any service, adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice including any of the following practices, namely;........................."
13. Thus, by not mentioning the actual date of possession or even tentative date of possession to the allottees, the act of petitioner amounts to a "deceptive practice" which falls within the meaning of unfair trade practice. It is well-settled that provision of law should be applicable to both the parties equally. As per terms of the allotment, if respondent defaults in payment then he is liable to pay the specified rate of interest for the delayed payment, whereas as per terms and conditions of the allotment, petitioner even after accepting the entire amount has not mentioned the date of possession, it certainly amounts to an unfair practice on the part of the petitioner.
14. In view of the concurrent finding of facts with regard to deficiency on the part of the petitioner as well as unfair trade practice indulged by the petitioner, we do not find any merit in the present revision petition. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bangalore Development Authority (supra), is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Hence, we do not find any merit in the present revision petition and the same stands dismissed.
15. No order as to costs.
......................J V.B. GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... SURESH CHANDRA MEMBER