State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Narne Esttes (P) Ltd vs R.P.Bajaj S/O Late R.S.Bajaj on 7 March, 2011
BEFORE THE A BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD F.A.No.200 OF 2008 AGAINST C.C.No.18 OF 2007 DISTRICT FORUM-I HYDERABAD Between: M/s Narne Esttes (P) Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director Sri Narne Ranga Rao, 1, Gunrock Enclave Secunderabad-009 Appellant/opposite party A N D R.P.Bajaj S/o late R.S.Bajaj aged 78 years, Occ: Retd. Central Govt. Employee, R/o Plot No.11 Theogaraj Colony, Secunderabad-915 Respondent/complainant Counsel for the Appellant Sri V.Henry Counsel for the Respondents Sri K.R.Kotswara Rao QUORUM: HONBLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT AND SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER
MONDAY THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Honble Member) ***
1. The opposite party is the appellant. The parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the complaint.
2. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant had taken membership vide No.17565 on 20.03.1994 for allotment of plots No.10 and 11 in East City Sector V by paying a sum of `54,000/- in instalments during the period 20.03.1994 to 2.12.1996. Since the opposite party had not taken developmental activity, the complainant requested for refund of `54,000/- with interest thereon. After several visits and reminders, the complainant received `54,000/- from the opposite party without interest.
The complainant got issued legal notice dated 4.12.2006 and filed the complaint seeking interest @ 12% per annum from 20.03.1994 to 4.12.2006.
3. The opposite party filed its counter resisting the claim and contended that the allotment of the plots were made subject to the condition that the allottee had to pay the development charges as per the intimation sent to him from time to time. The total cost of each plot consists of basic cost of the extent of the plot allotted inclusive of developmental charges. Except payment of basic cost, the development charges were not paid.
The rate of development charges were increased from `100/- to `150/- per sq.yard. As there was no response for the letter dated 26.12.201, the complainant was requested to pay a sum of `75,000/- for which he informed that he was in financial crisis. Thereafter, by letter dated 12.5.2006 the complainant requested for refund of the amount paid by him. Rupees 54,000/- was refunded. In case the allottee commits default, administrative charges would be deducted from the amount to be refunded to him. The complainant is not entitled for any interest on the refunded amount.
4. The complainant filed his affidavit and documents Exs.A1 to A14. Mr.Col.N.Ranga Rao, Chairman and Managing Director filed counter affidavit and documents Exs.B1 to B8.
5. Both parties have filed their respective written arguments.
6. The District Forum allowed the complaint directing the opposite party to pay interest @ 12% per annum on `54,000/- together with costs of `2,000/-.
7. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the opposite party preferred the appeal contending that the opposite party requested the complainant on 22.9.1999 to pay the development charges of `37,500/- and by his letter dated 24.1.2002 the complainant has informed the opposite party that due to serious financial problems he could not pay the developmental charges and requested for cancellation of the plot and refund of the amount. The complainant is not entitled for interest from 1994 as he requested for cancellation of the plot in the year 2002.
8. The point for consideration whether the complainant is entitled for interest on the amount paid by him to the opposite party?
9. The complainant had subscribed for allotment plot on 20.3.1994 in East City Sector. He was allotted membership no.17565 and he had paid a sum of `54,000/- in instalments from 20.3.1994 till 2.12.1996. The contention of the complainant is that the opposite party failed to develop the plot compelling him to seek for refund of the amount with interest thereon and he had received the amount of `54,000/- without prejudice to his rights to the interest thereon. The complainant has got issued notice dated 4.12.2006 whereas the opposite party has contended that regular quarterly circulars were sent to all the allottees including the complainant with a request to pay developmental charges of Rs.100/- per sq.yard which the complainant had not paid and subsequently the developmental charges were increased from `100/- to `150/- per sq.yard owing to the increase in the cost of development works and the complainant has failed to pay the revised developmental charges.
10. The core question involved in the subject matter of the appeal is whether the opposite party is liable to pay interest on the amount of `54,000/- to the complainant. It is not disputed that the complainant had sought for cancellation of allotment of plot and for refund of the amount. The complainant addressed a letter dated 24.1.2002 seeking for refund of the amount. The letter reads as under:
I have received your letter No.NE/EC/17565/662/20 dated 26.12.2001 giving the statement of account. I am required to pay a sum of Rs.86,200/- towards development charges, Regn. charges of the plots and interest for late payment. I regret to state that I am not in a position to meet this liability due to serious financial problems. I and my wife are both heart patients. I have already undergone bye pass surgery and my wife is under treatment for heart ailment. I am a pensioner and I have no means to meet the above liability that with the mounting medical bills for me and my wife. Under these circumstances, I have no other choice but to request you to cancel the allotment of the plots and refund the amount I have already paid as per special features of the original offer made to sell the flats in East City.
11. The opposite party relying on the letter referred to above, contended that the complainant had sought for cancellation of the allotment and as such he is not entitled for the interest from the date of payment of instalments.
12. The receipts dated 23.3.1994, 2.5.1994, 14.5.1994, 8.6.1994, 8.7.1994, 4.8.1994, 6.9.1994, 7.10.1994, 12.11.1994, 3.12.1994, 13.1.1995, 13.2.1995, 8.5.1995, 1.6.1995, 11.8.1995, 9.9.1995, 9.10.1995, 9.11.1995, 16.12.1995, 16.1.1996, 18.2.1996, 17.4.1996, 10.5.1996, 10.6.1996, 11.7.1996, 17.8.1996, 12.9.1996, 7.10.1996, 18.11.1996, 16.12.1996 do not whisper any amount towards developmental charges. The developmental charges are required to be paid on intimation of the details by the opposite party and the fact is evident from the letter dated 23.9.1994. The opposite party has demanded for payment of developmental charges on 22.9.1999. As seen from the letter dated 24.1.2002 addressed to the opposite party, the complainant has come to know for the first time about the details of the developmental charges as demanded by the opposite party by its letter dated 26.12.2001. The complainant has paid the instalments by the end of December 1996 and till the year 2001, the opposite party had not taken any steps nor informed the complainant about the progress of the development work if any, taken up by the opposite party.
13. What all the opposite party contends that in view of the complainant seeking for cancellation of plot allotment in the year 2002, the opposite party cannot be made liable to pay the interest on the amount prior to the date of cancellation letter and in this regard the opposite party has relied on the order of this commission in F.A.No.665 of 2005 dated 16.11.2005. In that case this Commission was dealing with the situation where the complainant was unable to pay the entire 36 instalments and sought for cancellation of the plot allotment and refund of the amount. In those circumstances the interest was to award from the date of cancellation letter.
14. In the case on hand the complainant has paid the entire instalments and the opposite party had acknowledged receipt of the entire amount of `54,000/- towards total cost of the plot . The opposite party had not mentioned any developmental charges in any of the receipts referred to and relied upon by the complainant. The complainant has got issued notice dated 12.5.2006 bringing to the knowledge of the opposite party that it had paid the amount along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of payment of last instalment and to the effect relied upon the order in C.D.No.657 of 2005 between M/s Kunti Bhatia Vs M/s Narne Estates Pvt. Ltd on the file of the Dist Forum-II Hyderabad.
15. The opposite party had not chosen to give any reply and made refund of the amount of Rs.54,000/- through cheque dated 12.9.2006 which was sent on 2.12.2006 which the complainant had accepted without prejudice to his rights to claim interest @ 12% per annum. In the notice dated 4.12.2006 the complainant had claimed that the opposite party agreed to pay interest as per the order in C.D.No.657/2005 on the file of District Forum-II, Hyderabad and C.D.No.1056 of 2005 on the file District Forum-III, Hyderabad. Thereafter there has been no correspondence whatsoever between the parties and the opposite party for the first time had come up with the contention before the District Forum that the complainant has not deposited the amount for the purpose of interest as usually done with a Bank. The contention of the opposite party is not sustainable for the reason that the opposite party had not intimated about the progress of the development work of the plot in order to fix any liability on the complainant as also for the reason that the opposite party had not claimed any amount towards administration charges while making refund of the amount and kept quite to the repeated demand for the interest on the amount by the complainant who had time and again brought to the notice of the opposite party about its admission to pay interest @ 12% per annum to those members who sought for cancellation of the plot allotment.
16. The complainant has repeatedly brought to the notice of the opposite party the orders in C.D.No.657/2005 on the file of District Forum-II, Hyderabad and C.D.No.1056 of 2005 on the file District Forum-III, Hyderabad which obligated the opposite party to pay interest @ 12% per annum from the date of payment of the last instalment. However, in the instant case, in view of the finding recorded by the District Forum the complainant is entitled to interest from the date of deposit of first instalment on the amount of `54,000/- is not sustainable and liable to be modified by the substitution of the date of deposit of the last instalment for the date of deposit of the first instalment.
17. In the result the appeal is partly allowed. The order of the District Forum is modified to the extent of period of interest payable. The opposite party directed to pay interest @ 12% per annum from the date of payment of last instalment and rest of the order of the District forum is confirmed.
There shall be no order as to costs in the appeal. Time for compliance four weeks.
PRESIDENT MEMBER Dt.07.03.2011 KMK*