National Consumer Disputes Redressal
1. Smt. Anuradha Maganthi & Ors. vs M/S. Adarsh Developers & Ors. on 28 November, 2014
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.99 OF 2007 judgment reserved on 14-11-2014 judgment pronounced on 28-11-2014 1. Smt. Anuradha Maganthi W/o Sri Srikanth Maganthi 2. Sri Srikanth Maganthi S/o Sri M.S. Seetharama Rao Both represented by GPA Holder, Sri M.S. Seetharama Rao No.1204, II B Cross, 18th Main J.P. Nagar, 2nd Phase Bangalore - 560078 ..Complainants Versus 1. M/s. Adarsh Developers No.10, Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore 560001 Represented by its Managing Partner Sri Jayashankar 2. M/s. Akarsh Infotech & Infrastructure No.10, Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore 560001 Represented by its Managing Partner Sri Jayashankar 3. Sri Jayashankar Partner M/s. Adarsh Developers & M/s. Akarsh Infotech & Infrastructure No.10, Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore 560001 4. Sri Karunesh Partner M/s. Adarsh Developers & M/s. Akarsh Infotech & Infrastructure No.10, Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore - 560001 ..Opposite parties CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.100 OF 2007 Sri Shivakumar Venkataraman No.176, Plam Meadows II Ramagondanahalli, Air Port White Filed Road Bangalore - 560066 ..Complainant Versus 1. M/s. Adarsh Developers No.10, Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore 560001 Represented by its Managing Partner Sri Jayashankar 2. M/s. Akarsh Infotech & Infrastructure No.10, Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore 560001 Represented by its Managing Partner Sri Jayashankar 3. Sri Jayashankar Partner M/s. Adarsh Developers & M/s. Akarsh Infotech & Infrastructure No.10, Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore 560001 4. Sri Karunesh Partner M/s. Adarsh Developers & M/s. Akarsh Infotech & Infrastructure No.10, Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore - 560001 ..Opposite parties CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.101 OF 2007 Sri Kanwar Jit Singh Son of Sri Mehar Singh No.701, Athena I, Prestige Acropolis, Hosur Road, Koramangala Bangalore - 560029 ..Complainant Versus 1. M/s. Adarsh Developers No.10, Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore 560001 Represented by its Managing Partner Sri Jayashankar 2. M/s. Akarsh Infotech & Infrastructure No.10, Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore 560001 Represented by its Managing Partner Sri Jayashankar 3. Sri Jayashankar Partner M/s. Adarsh Developers & M/s. Akarsh Infotech & Infrastructure No.10, Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore 560001 4. Sri Karunesh Partner M/s. Adarsh Developers & M/s. Akarsh Infotech & Infrastructure No.10, Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore - 560001 ..Opposite parties CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.102 OF 2007 Capt. Srikanth Badrinath Son of Sri Badrinath No.353, 1st Cross, 1st Block Jayanagar, Bangalore - 560011 ..Complainant Versus 1. M/s. Adarsh Developers No.10, Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore 560001 Represented by its Managing Partner Sri Jayashankar 2. M/s. Akarsh Infotech & Infrastructure No.10, Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore 560001 Represented by its Managing Partner Sri Jayashankar 3. Sri Jayashankar Partner M/s. Adarsh Developers & M/s. Akarsh Infotech & Infrastructure No.10, Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore 560001 4. Sri Karunesh Partner M/s. Adarsh Developers & M/s. Akarsh Infotech & Infrastructure No.10, Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore - 560001 ..Opposite parties CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.103 OF 2007 Pardha Pothana Son of Sri Seshagiri Rao No.172, Lakeshore Homes Kasavanahalli, Sarjapura Road Bangalore 560035 ..Complainant Versus 1. M/s. Adarsh Developers No.10, Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore 560001 Represented by its Managing Partner Sri Jayashankar 2. M/s. Akarsh Infotech & Infrastructure No.10, Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore 560001 Represented by its Managing Partner Sri Jayashankar 3. Sri Jayashankar Partner M/s. Adarsh Developers & M/s. Akarsh Infotech & Infrastructure No.10, Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore 560001 4. Sri Karunesh Partner M/s. Adarsh Developers & M/s. Akarsh Infotech & Infrastructure No.10, Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore - 560001 ..Opposite parties CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.104 OF 2007 Sarath Kumar Son of Sri P. Chandrasekhar Reddy No.2457, 1st Floor, 16th B Main HAL, 2nd Stage, Bangalore-560011 ..Complainant Versus 1. M/s. Adarsh Developers No.10, Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore 560001 Represented by its Managing Partner Sri Jayashankar 2. M/s. Akarsh Infotech & Infrastructure No.10, Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore 560001 Represented by its Managing Partner Sri Jayashankar 3. Sri Jayashankar Partner M/s. Adarsh Developers & M/s. Akarsh Infotech & Infrastructure No.10, Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore 560001 4. Sri Karunesh Partner M/s. Adarsh Developers & M/s. Akarsh Infotech & Infrastructure No.10, Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore - 560001 ..Opposite parties CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.8 OF 2008 Sri Srinivas Mogalapalli Son of Sri M. Gunna Raju No.2056, Anand Vihar Sobha Jasmine Outer Ring Road Bellandur, Bangalore - 560103 ..Complainant Versus 1. M/s. Adarsh Developers No.10, Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore 560001 Represented by its Managing Partner Sri Jayashankar 2. M/s. Akarsh Infotech & Infrastructure No.10, Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore 560001 Represented by its Managing Partner Sri Jayashankar 3. Sri Jayashankar Partner M/s. Adarsh Developers & M/s. Akarsh Infotech & Infrastructure No.10, Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore 560001 4. Sri Karunesh Partner M/s. Adarsh Developers & M/s. Akarsh Infotech & Infrastructure No.10, Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore - 560001 ..Opposite parties CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.35 OF 2008 Sri Raghav M. Trivedi S/o Sri Mahesh Chandra M. Trivedi No.6105, Aberdeen Drive Plano, TX 75093, USA Represented by his Power of Attorney Holder Sri Maheshchandra M. Trivedi S/o Mahipatram Trivedi No.10, Mayurnagar Co. DPC Housing Society Layout, Near Niranjan Society Memnagar, Ahmedabad - 380052 ..Complainant Versus 1. M/s. Adarsh Developers No.10, Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore 560001 Represented by its Managing Partner Sri Jayashankar 2. M/s. Akarsh Infotech & Infrastructure No.10, Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore 560001 Represented by its Managing Partner Sri Jayashankar 3. Sri Jayashankar Partner M/s. Adarsh Developers & M/s. Akarsh Infotech & Infrastructure No.10, Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore 560001 4. Sri Karunesh Partner M/s. Adarsh Developers & M/s. Akarsh Infotech & Infrastructure No.10, Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore - 560001 ..Opposite parties CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.92 OF 2008 Mr. Parag Prasad C-304, Oceanus Triton Opp. ALT Training College Sarjapur Road Bangalore - 560037 ..Complainant Versus 1. M/s. Adarsh Developers No.10, Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore 560001 Represented by its Managing Partner Sri Jayashankar 2. M/s. Akarsh Infotech & Infrastructure No.10, Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore 560001 Represented by its Managing Partner Sri Jayashankar 3. Sri Jayashankar Partner M/s. Adarsh Developers & M/s. Akarsh Infotech & Infrastructure No.10, Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore 560001 4. Sri Karunesh Partner M/s. Adarsh Developers & M/s. Akarsh Infotech & Infrastructure No.10, Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore - 560001 ..Opposite parties BEFORE: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER In all the matters For the complainant : Ms. Kiran Suri, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Ritika Gambhir, Advocate For the opposite parties : Mr. Amit S. Chadha, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Srishti Govil, Adv., Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, Adv. and Ms. Vaishanavi S., Advocate ORDER
JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER
1. The complainants in CC No.99 of 2007 agreed to purchase a villa at Adarsh Palm Retreat Villa, Varthur Hobli, Sarjapur, Bangalore, on a plot area of 4,000 sq. ft. with built up area of 2230 sq.ft., from the opposite party-Adarsh Developers, a partnership firm for a total consideration of Rs.1,31,94,000/- and paid a sum of Rs.72,56,700/- on various dates between 05-08-2005 to 07-11-2005. The balance amount was payable at the time of execution and registration of the conveyance deed. According to the complainants they were orally informed on behalf of the opposite parties that they were unable to build up the villa and were going to return the money received by them from the complainants, along with some interest on that amount. The complainants thereafter served a legal notice upon the opposite parties which was replied by them on 20-07-2007. Being aggrieved from the failure of the opposite parties to deliver the villa to them in terms of the agreement between the parties, the complainants have approached this Commission seeking a direction to the opposite parties to execute and register a proper conveyance deed on receiving the balance consideration from them. The alternative prayer made by the complainants is to direct the opposite parties to pay the present market value of the villa to them.
2. In CC No.92 of 2008 the complainant, Parag Prasad, booked a villa in the same project of the opposite parties and an allotment letter was issued to him for allotting a villa having built up area of 2970 sq. ft. for a consideration of Rs.1,43,49,000/-. He made payment of Rs.81,05,625/- to the opposite parties and the balance amount was payable on execution of the title deed in his favour. The opposite parties did not construct the villa which they had agreed to sell to the aforesaid complainant. Being aggrieved he is before this Commission claiming an identical relief.
3. The complainant in CC No.101 of 2007 namely Kanwar Jit Singh was allotted a villa with built up area of 2250 sq.ft. in terms of the allotment letter dated 26-10-2005, for a consideration of Rs.1,31,94,000/-. He made payment of Rs.39,97,370/- to the opposite parties. Since the villa agreed to be sold to him was not constructed by the opposite parties he has filed the aforesaid complaint making an identical prayer.
4. In CC No.35 of 2008 the complainant, Raghav M. Trivedi, was allotted a villa with built up area of 2230 sq. ft., for a consideration of Rs.1,38,01,000/- vide letter dated 05-08-2005 and he made payment of Rs.76,13,444/- to the said opposite parties. In his case also the villa allotted to him was not constructed by the opposite parties. Therefore, he is also before us with an identical prayer.
5. Shri Srinivas Mogalapalli, complainant in CC No.8 of 2008 booked a villa with built up area of 2295 sq.ft. on a plot area of 4250 sq.ft. for a consideration of Rs.1,42,72,751/-, vide allotment letter dated 12-09-2005. He made payment of Rs.42,81,900/- to the opposite parties. In his case also the villa allotted to him was not constructed by the opposite parties and, therefore, he has also approached this Commission with a similar prayer.
6. Sri Shivakumar Venkataraman, complainant in CC No.100 of 2007 agreed to purchase a villa with built up area of 2230 sq. ft. to be constructed on a plot of area of 4250 sq. ft. for a total consideration of Rs.1,38,01,000/- and made payment of Rs.39,58,200/- to the opposite parties on different dates. Having been denied the villa sold to him he is also before us by way of this complaint.
7. The complainant in CC No.102 of 2007 namely Captain Srikanth Badrinath agreed to purchase a villa with built up area of 2230 sq. ft. on a plot area of 4000 sq. ft. for a total consideration of Rs.1,31,94,000/- and he made payment of Rs.72,56,700/- to the opposite parties. He also has been denied the villa booked by him and, therefore, is seeking construction and allotment of the said villa or in the alternative compensation based upon the current market value of the villa.
8. Shri Pardha Pothana, complainant in CC No.103 of 2007 booked a villa with built up area of 2870 sq. ft. on a plot area of 4400 sq. ft. for a total consideration of Rs.1,55,65,000/- and made payment of Rs.85,60,750/- to the opposite parties. He also was denied the aforesaid villa on the same ground on which other complainants were denied the villas booked by them and, therefore, he is also seeking an identical relief.
9. The complainant in CC No.104 of 2007 namely Sarath Kumar agreed to purchase a villa with built up area of 3010 sq. ft. on a plot area of 4000 sq.ft. for consideration of Rs.1,44,11,000/-. He made payment of Rs.79,26,050/- to the opposite parties. He also was denied villa which the opposite parties had agreed to sell to him and, therefore, is claiming the construction and possession of the said villa or in the alternative current market price of the villa booked by him.
10. The complaints have been resisted by the opposite parties primarily on the ground that the allotment to the complainants was made subject to approval of the plans by the concerned authorities and the plans submitted by them to Bangalore Development Authority were not approved by the said authority, on the ground that in the Comprehensive Development Plan (RCDP-1995) substantial portion of the land on which villas in question were to be constructed was reserved for a road. It is further stated in the reply that as per the current master plan (revised master plan-2015) which came into force on 25-06-2007 the land in question is classified as industrial and residential use is permitted only as an ancillary use in the said hi-tech zone. According to the opposite parties, the contract between the parties was a contingent contract, performance of which has become impossible. It is further stated in the reply that way back in 2007 the complainants were informed that they could take refund of their money along with interest.
11. It is not in dispute that the villas subject matter of these complaints were allotted by the opposite parties to the complainants and the agreement between the parties obligated the opposite parties to construct the said villas, handover possession to the purchasers and execute the requisite title deed in their favour. The case of the opposite parties is that the project in which villas were allotted to the complainants was constructed by them in phases, the land for the phase in which villas were allotted to the complainants was comprised in survey Nos.112/P and 89/P of Boganahalli village and the building plans for the said phase comprising 40 villas were rejected by Bangalore Development Authority vide letter dated 11-09-2006. A perusal of the aforesaid letter would show that the building plan for construction of residential complex on the aforesaid land were rejected solely on the ground that a major portion of the said land was reserved for the proposed road and a portion was reserved for residential purpose in RCDP 1995. The opposite parties were also informed by Bangalore Development Authority that further action on their proposal would be taken only if the plan was submitted according to Zonal Regulations in respect of the land reserved for residential purpose, after deleting the land reserved for the purpose of road. Thus, Bangalore Development Authority was ready to consider sanction of the building plan provided the construction was confined to that portion of the land comprised in Survey No.112/P & 89/P, which was reserved for residential purpose in RCDP of 1995. The learned senior counsel for the opposite parties contended that since the project was being developed in phases and every phase of the project was expected to be a self-contained unit, it was not possible for them to construct villas only on that portion of the land which was reserved for residential purpose in RCDP 1995. The contention of the learned counsel was that it would not have been feasible for them to construct the villas in requisite number and also provide the prescribed facilities, such as park, roads, sewerage, electricity and water infrastructure for the residents of those villas only on that portion of the land which was reserved for residential purpose in RCDP 1995.
12. In our view, even if we proceed on the assumption that since the villas were sought to be constructed by the opposite parties in phases, every phase was to be self-contained meaning thereby that the facilities such as roads, open areas, green areas and club house, etc., as well as the villas in requisite numbers could not have been constructed on that portion of the land which was reserved for residential purpose in RCDP of 1995, the opposite parties would still be held deficient in rendering services to the complainants. The RCDP of 1995 would have come into force sometime around 1995, whereas villas in question came to be allotted to the complainants only in the year 2005. As per information available on the website of Bangalore Development Authority, the first comprehensive development plan for Bangalore Metropolitan was approved on 12-10-1984. Subsequently revised CDP was approved on 05-01-1995 which is still in force. This is not the case of the opposite parties that RCDP of 1995 had not been notified by the time the villas in question were allotted by them to the complainants. Being builders operating in and around Bangalore, the opposite parties would be knowing that a major portion of the land comprised in survey No.112/P and 89/P on which they were seeking to construct 40 villas including the villas allotted to the complainants, was reserved for proposed road and, therefore, Bangalore Development Authority will not be able to approve the building plans for construction of residential houses on the entire land comprised in the aforesaid survey numbers. Even otherwise everyone including the opposite parties is presumed to know the law of the land and since RCDP of 1995 had the force of law, they are presumed to be aware of the provisions of the said plan. In any case, it is inconceivable that before making booking and accepting the money in a project of this nature the builder would not ascertain, that the land owned by him and sought to be used for construction of houses was allowed, under the relevant statutory plans, to be used for the residential purposes. Therefore, in our opinion, the opposite parties must be knowing at the time of allotting the villas in question to the complainants that a major portion of the land comprised in survey No.112/P and 89/P could not have been used for residential purpose, the same having been reserved for the proposed road. Therefore, they ought not to have agreed to sell villas, to be constructed on the land comprised in survey No.89 and 112. Anyhow, even if we proceed on the assumption that the opposite parties did not verify the land use of the land comprised in survey No.112/P and 89/P before making allotment of villas in question to the complainants that by itself would be an act of deficiency in the services rendered by them to the complainants since, in our opinion, it was obligatory for them, before allotting the villas in question and accepting part consideration from the complainants to consult the statutory plan in force at that time and verify, from Bangalore Development Authority that the whole of the land on which they were proposing to construct villas were permitted to be used for residential purposes.
13. In CC No.104 of 2007, the complainant has placed on record the letter dated 27-10-2005 addressed by the Adarsh Developers to IDBI Bank, Bangalore. It was stated in the aforesaid letter that they (Adarsh Developers) had obtained necessary approvals for construction of villa No.236 which they had allotted to the complainant Sarath Kumar for a consideration of Rs.1,36,57,000/-, from all the concerned competent authorities and the construction of the said building was in accordance with the approved plans. If Bangalore Development Authority had not approved the building plans in respect of villas in question as is claimed by the opposite parties, an obvious mis-representation was made by them by falsely stating that they had obtained necessary approval for construction of the villa from the concerned competent authorities and the construction was in accordance with the approved plans. This would be yet another act of deficiency in the services rendered to the complainants in case the building plans for the villas in question were actually refused by Bangalore Development Authority as is claimed by the opposite parties.
14. It transpired during the course of hearing that after denying the villas booked by the complainants to them, the opposite parties got approved building plans for construction of villas on the land adjoining the land comprised in survey No.112 & 89 and under the said plans, the facility of club house was located by the opposite parties on the land which they had allegedly planned to use for constructing the villas allotted to the complainants. Despite the fact that denial of villas to the complainants could not be attributed to any default on the part of the complainants, the opposite parties did not try to accommodate the complainants in the aforesaid subsequent phase, at the same price at which allotment was made to them. This, in our opinion, could easily have been done either by offering some of the villas to be constructed in the subsequent phase to the complainants or by locating the facilities such as club house on the adjoining land and constructing villas for the complainants on the land comprised in survey No.89 and 112. Considering that the statutory plan prepared by Bangalore Development Authority was later amended and as per the amended plan, residential use was permitted in the hi-tech zone, such an accommodation was entirely possible within the parameters of law. In fact, the opposite parties actually sold the villas in the subsequent phase, though at a higher price, without bothering about their contractual obligation to provide villas to the complainant at the price agreed with them. The case of the complainants is that the land price in survey No.89 and 112 was never notified by Bangalore Development Authority for road, etc., and in this regard they have relied upon the reply furnished to them by the said authority vide its letter dated 08-02-2008. However, considering the letter dated 11-09-2006 from Bangalore Development Authority which the opposite parties have place on record, we are proceeding on the assumption that the building plans for construction of villas allotted to the complainants were rejected by the said authority on the ground that a major portion of the land on which 40 villas were sought to be constructed by them was reserved for road in the RCDP 1995. In fact this is also the case of the opposite parties that they were willing to offer villas to the complainants in the subsequent phase which Bangalore Development Authority had approved vide sanction dated 24-12-2009 though at a higher price but the complainants were not willing to pay the higher price. It is, thus, evident that despite having an opportunity to accommodate the complainants in the subsequent phase, by allotting villas to them at the original price agreed with them, the opposite parties deliberately chose not to do so and sought a higher price instead of trying to honour their contractual obligations.
15. The learned counsel for the opposite parties, in support of his contention that the forum cannot direct execution of a contract which had become impossible to perform even if such a performance becomes possible at a later date referred to the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in K. Narendra Vs. Riviera Apartments (P) Ltd., 1999 (5) SCC 77; 2001 (5) SCC (101), Her Highness Maharani Shantidevi P. Gaikwad Vs. Savjibhai Haribhai Patel & Ors.. He also referred to the decisions of the Honble Supreme Court in 1973 (2) SCC 746, Har Prasad Choubey Vs. Union of India & Anr. and 1969 1 SCR 65, Boothalinga Agencies Vs. V.T.C. Poriaswanmi Nadar. He also placed reliance upon the decision of Delhi High Court in AIR 1986 Del 158, Punj Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India. However, none of these judgments would apply considering that we are proceeding on the assumption that on account of the refusal of the Bangalore Development Authority to sanction the plans for construction of villas on the land comprised in survey No.89 and 112, the contract between the parties had become void in terms of Section 56 of the Contract Act and considering the stand taken by the opposite parties that no villa is available with them for providing to the complainants we do not propose to direct the opposite parties to either construct villas or to provide readymade villas to the complainants.
16. The next question arising for consideration is as to the relief which we should grant to the complainants in the facts and circumstances of the case. The primary prayer made by the complainants was to direct the opposite parties to execute and register a conveyance deed, in respect of villa allotted to them in their favour, on receiving the balance sale consideration and put the complainants in possession of the said villa. The alternative prayer made by them was to pay monetary compensation amounting to prevailing market price of the villa. The case of the opposite parties is that no villa is available with them for allotment to the complainants. According to them all the villas have either been sold or agreed to be sold to other purchasers. The complainants have placed on record an email from the opposite parties which would show that the opposite parties offered a villa in the same project, on a plot of 4000 sq.ft. with a built up area of 2230 sq.ft. for a price of Rs.3,29,06,000/- exclusive of VAT. The price offered for an east facing or culdisac villa was a little higher. Calculated on the basis of the price quoted for the villas which were not east facing or culdisac villas the price per square feet comes to about Rs.14,576/- per sq.ft.. Considering that the price quoted by the opposite parties was negotiable, on making deduction of about 5% from the aforesaid price we come to a price of Rs.14,000/- per sq.ft., as on 02-09-2009 when the aforesaid email was sent. It is, thus, evident that the market price of the villas, which the opposite parties had agreed to sell to the complainants had escalated to about Rs.14,000/- per sq.ft. as on 02-09-2009. Even if we proceed on the assumption that on account of refusal of Bangalore Development Authority to sanction building plans on the entire land comprised in survey No.112 and 89, the contract between the parties to sell villas in question to the complainants had become impossible to perform, the complainants are entitled to compensation in terms of Section 56 of the Contract Act since in our view, the opposite parties knew or with reasonable diligence might have known but the complainants did not know that the villas in question could not have been constructed on the land comprised in survey No.112 and 89. Besides their right under the provisions of Contract Act the complainants are also entitled to suitable compensation under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act on account of deficiency/negligence in the services rendered to them by the opposite parties. The suitable compensation in our view would be the price of the villa agreed to be paid by the complainants and the market price as on the date villas were refused by the opposite parties to the complainants vide letter/notice dated 19-07-2007. Though the complainants pressed for award of compensation based on the current market value of the villas, the said prayer in our view is not justified considering that on receipt of letter/notice dated 19-07-2007 the complainants came to know that the opposite parties were not willing to construct the villas in question for them and, therefore, they were at liberty after the aforesaid date, to take back their money from the opposite parties along with the interest they were offering and purchase another property suitable to their requirements. Even thereafter they could have sought compensation from the opposite parties based upon the difference between the price agreed to be paid by them and the market value on the date of the letter dated 19-07-2007. Had that been done, the complainants could have been benefitted from the appreciation which took place in the market value of the property after 19-07-2007.
17. As stated hereinabove, the selling price of the villas similar to the villas agreed to be sold to the complainants and sought to be constructed on the land adjoining the land on which villas allotted to the complainants were to be located, was about Rs.14,000/- per sq. ft. of built up area as on 02-09-2009. Therefore, in our opinion, the complainants are entitled to proportionate compensation calculated on the basis of the difference between the price per sq. ft. agreed to be paid by them and the price per sq. ft. as on 02-09-2009. We are also of the view that the complainants are entitled to proportionate compensation only to the extent money was paid by them to the opposite parties. For instance, Captain Shrikant Badrinath, complainant in CC No.102 of 2007 had agreed to purchase villa with built up area of 2230 sq.ft. for a total consideration of Rs.1,31,94,000/- and the allotment to him was made on 08-08-2005. The price per sq. ft. of built up area, agreed to be paid by him, comes to Rs.5,917/-. Therefore, the price appreciation in his case was Rs.8,083/- per sq.ft. of built up area between 08-08-2005 to 02-09-2009 i.e. in 1486 days (4 years and 25 days). The appreciation per day, on average basis comes to about Rs.5.44 per sq. ft. of built up area. The time lag between 08-08-2005 when the villa was allotted to him and 19-07-2007 when the same was refused to him was 711 days. Therefore, the proportionate appreciation in the price of his villa comes to about Rs.3,868/- per sq. ft. of built up area, between 08-08-2005 to 19-07-2007. Calculated accordingly the total price appreciation of the villa, between 08-08-2005, the date on which the villa was allotted to him and 19-07-2007 when the villa was refused to him comes to Rs.86,25,640/-. However, the aforesaid appreciation would on a total sale consideration of Rs.1,31,94,000/- whereas this complainant paid only Rs.72,56,700/-. Therefore, he would not get the benefit of the whole of the appreciation and would be entitled only to a sum of Rs.47,44,102/- as compensation, on proportionate basis.
18. It would be for the parties to calculate the quantum of compensation payable to the complainant applying the same formula which we have applied in the case of Captain Shrikant Badrinath. In addition to the aforesaid compensation the complainants are also entitled to simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the principal amount paid by them to the opposite parties, with effect from 19-07-2007 till the date the aforesaid amount is paid to them along with interest.
19. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the complaints are disposed of with the following directions:
(i) the opposite parties shall pay to the complainants within six weeks from today, compensation calculated in terms of this order;
(ii) the opposite parties shall pay to the complainants simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum, on the principal amount paid by them to the opposite parties with effect from 19-07-2007 till the aforesaid amount is paid along with interest and
(iii) the opposite parties shall also pay interest to the complainants on the amount of compensation calculated in terms of this order, at the rate of 12% per annum with effect from today till the date of payment, in case the aforesaid compensation is not paid within six weeks from today.
....
(V.K. JAIN, J.) PRESIDING MEMBER ....
(DR.B.C. GUPTA) MEMBER rk.17 to 25