National Consumer Disputes Redressal
M/S. Pragati Promoters & Anr vs M. Jyothsna on 31 March, 2022
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2224 OF 2010 (Against the Order dated 02/11/2009 in Appeal No. 1350/2007 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh) 1. M/S. PRAGATI PROMOTERS & ANR Flat No. 10, Bommana Apartments, Pitampuram Colony Visakhapatnam Andhra Pradesh 2. A REVATHI, W/O. A RAVI Managing Partner, Nagarjunanagar, Ameerpet, Near Chermas, 8-3-30/301 Hyderabad - 500073 Andhra Pradesh ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. M. JYOTHSNA Flat No. 103, Lotus Plaza, 9-14-17, C.B.M. Compound Visakhapatnam Andhra Pradesh ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. DINESH SINGH,PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE,MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mrs. K. Radha, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. S.V.S. Chowdhary, Advocate for Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate Dated : 31 Mar 2022 ORDER
1. This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Act 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 02.11.2009 of the State Commission in appeal no. 1350 of 2007 arising out of the Order dated 11.12.2006 of the District Commission in complaint no. 269 of 1999.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record including inter alia the Order dated 11.12.2006 of the District Commission, the impugned Order dated 02.11.2009 of the State Commission and the petition. Learned proxy counsel appearing for the respondent has also made his submissions, on instructions.
3. This case relates to a builder-buyer dispute. The short point involved is the quantum of compensation on account of delay in handing over possession of the subject residential flat by the petitioners (the 'builder') to the respondent (the 'complainant').
4. The matter was earlier considered by this Commission in revision and vide Order dated 22.07.2004 it was remanded to the District Commission for deciding afresh.
The District Commission made a fresh appraisal of the case and vide its Order dated 11.12.2006 made the following award:
In view of this back ground we understand, that the complainant prayed for a direction to the opposite party to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month for a period of 4 months of delay in handing over possession. It appears to us from a plain reading of Ex. A 2 agreement, complainant is entitled to Rs. 3,000/- per month until handing over possession of the flat beyond 20th October, 1998. The actual handing over of the flat was made on 30th September 2004 as per the joint memo dated 30th September 2004, which is referred by us already. Since the complainant never asked for payment of Rs. 3,000/- per month until handing over possession of flat, we confine to the period of 4 months as prayed for by the complainant. From the material on record we hold the complainant is entitled to Rs. 12,000/- being amount on account of delay in handing over possession of the flat. Accordingly, this point is answered.
In the result, complaint is allowed, directing the opposite party to pay Rs. 12,000/- to the complainant being the amount on account of delay over a period of 4 months in handing over the possession of the flat to the complainant.
In appeal the State Commission enhanced the award as below:
Accordingly the appeal is partly allowed and the order of the District Forum is modified directing the opposite parties to pay jointly and severally an amount representing the interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on the cost of the flat i.e. Rs. 7,75,250/- from 20-2-1999 to 30-9-2004, the date of actual delivery of possession over and above the relief already granted by the District Forum as this dispensation is in conformity with the Order of the National Commission. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. The respondents/opposite parties shall comply with this order within six weeks of the receipt of this order.
5. We find that the State Commission has passed a well-weighed and well-reasoned Order. After appraising the facts and evidence it has conclusively established the relevant dates and exact period of delay in handing over possession beyond the agreed and assured date and has enhanced the compensation, evidently to meet the scales of equity, by ordering that in addition to the amount of Rs. 12,000/- awarded by the District Commission interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount deposited by the complainant with the builder shall also be payable to the complainant for the period of delay i.e. from 20.02.1999 to 30.09.2004.
6. Learned counsel for the builder submits that the additional amount awarded as compensation by the State Commission has been computed in the form of interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount deposited by the complainant. She argues that the said rate of interest of 12% per annum is on the higher side and may be reduced to 9-10% per annum.
7. In rebuttal on the other hand learned proxy counsel for the complainant submits on instructions that the rate of interest of 12% per annum is fair and equitable in the facts of the case. He emphasizes that interest has been awarded for the period of delay i.e. from 20.02.1999 to 30.09.2004 only. The State Commission passed its impugned Order in 2009. No interest has been awarded for the period subsequent to 30.09.2004. The instant petition before this Commission was filed in 2010. Today we are in 2022. Vide this Commission's Order dated 19.07.2010 the operation of the State Commission's Order was stayed subject to payment of Rs. 12,000/- i.e. the amount awarded by the District Commission to the complainant. But the additional amount awarded by the State Commission in the form of interest on the amount deposited by the complainant with the builder has not been directed to carry any interest in the interregnum. The submission is that the value of the additional amount awarded has progressively diluted with the efflux of time and any reduction in the rate of interest at this stage may cause a travesty of justice.
8. We find that the State Commission has comprehensively examined the matter in its totality, it has computed the exact period of delay, and has awarded an additional amount as compensation over and above the amount of Rs. 12,000/- awarded by the District Commission. The State Commission has computed the said additional amount by way of interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount deposited by the complainant with the builder. We find that the nature and terms of the award made by the State Commission is in consonance with and within the four corners of law and appears just and equitable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. We do not perceive any arbitrariness or unreasonableness or perversity in the order, nor do we see any miscarriage of justice having been occasioned. We also do not perceive any elements of disproportion in the award. On the contrary we find merit in the submission of the learned proxy counsel for the complainant that any reduction in the rate of interest at this stage might be inequitable and unjust. What is to be seen in such matters is as to what should be the scales of equity and how do delineate and define the perimeters of conscionable justice. In fact such a matter falls in the realm of discretion of the concerned forum seized with it, and which must exercise the same judiciously and reasonably. There can be no straight-jacketed formula on such issues that may go towards universal application. In such matters of judicious discretion we ordinarily do give regard and weightage to the lower forum's view, but of course where we find that the use or exercise of discretion has not been judiciously undertaken or where we find any trappings of capricious and whimsical exercise or find elements of patent arbitrariness or unreasonableness or of visible lack of application of mind, we do not hesitate to interfere and do pass the corrective orders necessarily. Similarly, where we find that the order is tainted with absurdity, we do not hesitate to set the same right. In the present case at hand, however, we do not see any such reason to feel inclined to take a different view of the matter than what has been taken by the State Commission.
9. The present petition, argued on behalf of the builder on the limited question of rate of interest, is bereft of worth and must fail.
10. The revision petition no. 2224 of 2010 stands dismissed.
The impugned Order dated 02.11.2009 of the State Commission shall be complied with in its entirety within four weeks from today, failing which the District Commission shall undertake execution, for 'enforcement' and for 'penalty', as per the law.
11. The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the petition and to their learned counsel as well as to the District Commission immediately. The stenographer is also requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.
...................... DINESH SINGH PRESIDING MEMBER ......................J KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE MEMBER