National Consumer Disputes Redressal
M/S. Narne Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs Sushmitha Ramkrishnan & Anr. on 1 March, 2019
Author: R.K. Agrawal
Bench: R.K. Agrawal
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1630 OF 2018 (Against the Order dated 23/02/2018 in Appeal No. 345/2014 of the State Commission Telangana) 1. M/S. NARNE CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, 1, GUNROCK ENCLAVE, KARAKHANA DISTRICT-SECUNDERABAD-500009 TELANGANA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. SUSHMITHA RAMKRISHNAN & ANR. W/O. SHRI MAHESH RAMA KRISHNAN, 4-A, JAAGRUTHI RESIDENCY, EAST MERREDPALLY, SECUNDERABAD-500026 TELANGANA 2. SMT. USHA PARAKH 4-A, JAAGRUTHI RESIDENCY, EAST MERREDPALLY, SECUNDERABAD-500026 TELANGANA ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL,PRESIDENT
For the Petitioner : Mr. Bhagabati Prasad Padhy, Advocate For the Respondent :
Dated : 01 Mar 2019 ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and perused the impugned order dated 23.02.2018 passed by the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission'), by which the Appeal preferred by the Respondent herein has been allowed and the Petitioner, who was the Opposite Party before the District Forum has been directed to pay lump sum compensation of ₹3,00,000/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of Complaint till the date of payment and cost of ₹5,000/-.
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that whatever amount has been charged from the Complainant was paid voluntarily and there was no question of any deficiency of service on their behalf. He further submitted that the plot in question which formed part of the land of the project came under Urban Land Ceiling and therefore some amount was required under law to be paid and get it cleared from the ceiling proceedings and for which the Complainant had agreed to pay and therefore the amount cannot be directed to be refunded. The submission is wholly misconceived. The Petitioner herein had offered the plots free from all encumbrance to the Complainant and if under any law some restrictions is placed and the Petitioner takes steps to get it cleared, the Complainant cannot be made liable to pay the same. The Complainant has only to pay the amount which have been agreed upon at the time of letter of allotment and not otherwise. The State Commission has given categorical finding of fact that the allotment letter, which specifically mentioned that the Petitioner will sell the developed plots and there is no question of charging anything extra other than amount agreed. Even in respect of registration fee the excess amount was collected by the Petitioner. Taking into consideration all these factors, the State Commission has rightly held the Petitioner deficient in service and directed for payment of lump sum compensation of ₹3,00,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of Complaint till the date of actual payment.
3. In my considered opinion, the order passed by the State Commission does not suffer from any illegality.
4. Dismissed.
......................J R.K. AGRAWAL PRESIDENT