National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Secretary South Western Railway House ... vs K. Velayudha on 24 February, 2011
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 454 OF 2011 (From the order dated 19.01.11 in FA No. 3909/2010 of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, KARNATAKA) WITH I.A. 1 / 2011 (FOR STAY) The Secretary, South Western Railway House Building Cooperative Society Mysore South, Mysore 570008 Petitioner Versus K. Velayudhan S/o Kandachar, No. 988, 9th Cross, BEML Layout, 2nd Stage, Rajarajeswari Nagar, Bhogadhi ...Respondent
BEFORE:-
HONBLE MR. SURESH CHANDRA, PRESIDING MEMBER For the Petitioner :
Mr. Sharanagouda N. Patil, Advocate For Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON : 24th FEB. 2011 O R D E R PER SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER The complainant, who is respondent herein, approached the District Forum with a complaint that the opposite party who is petitioner herein, did not allot the site as promised and, therefore, he demanded the refund of the amount of Rs.2,40,000/- deposited by him with the OP Society alongwith interest. However, while the OP Society refunded the amount of advance of Rs.2,40,000/- to the complainant, it did not pay any interest thereon during the period when the advance remained deposited with the society. On appraisal of the issues and evidence adduced by the parties, the District Forum accepted the complaint by its order dated 26.08.2010 and directed the OP Society to pay interest @10% p.a. from the respective dates of the deposit of the amount till 12.04.2010. The OP was also directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant towards cost of proceedings. The appeal filed by the OP Society before the State Commission also did not find favour and came to be dismissed thereby confirming the order of the District Forum. The challenge in this revision petition is to this impugned order of the State Commission passed on 19.01.2011.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner society and perused the concurrent orders accepting the complaint passed by the fora below. The limited issue before us is in respect of the payment of interest on the amount of deposit which remained deposited with the petitioner society for different periods.
The contention of the counsel of petitioner society is that the society is a no profit no loss organization and has no provision for payment of interest on such advance / deposits made by the members for allotment of plots. He further submitted that there was no agreement either to pay the interest on the advance amount paid by the complainant towards the site value. In this context, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgement of this Commission in the case of V. Kalyanam & Anr. Vs. Navin Housing and Properties (Pvt.) Ltd & Ors. [I (2008) CPJ 415 (NC)].
3. Having considered the facts and circumstances of this case, it is to be noted that the complainant in this case sought the refund of the advance amount not because he did not want the site from the OP Society but because as promised and assured the OP did not confirm the lay-out and allot the site. In view of this deficiency in service on the part of the OP Society, the complainant demanded the refund of the amount. Taking due note of this important aspect and also the fact that in some other cases referred to by the District Forum in para 7 of its order, the OP Society has been held liable to pay interest, the District forum has rightly accepted the complaint of the respondent. Agreeing with this finding of the District Forum, the State Commission dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order. There being no material irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error involved in the matter, we do not find it to be a fit case for our interference with the concurrent orders of the fora below while exercising our revisional jurisdiction.
The facts and circumstances of the case (supra) relied on by the counsel for the petitioner being different, the judgement of this Commission in that case does not provide any relief to the petitioner Society in the present case. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed at the threshold with no order as to costs.
Sd/-
(SURESH CHANDRA) PRESIDING MEMBER rs/