National Consumer Disputes Redressal
H.C. Malhotra And Ors. vs Ansal Buildwell Ltd. on 23 March, 2006
Equivalent citations: 3(2006)CPJ22(NC)
ORDER
S.N. Kapoor, J. (Presiding Member)
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the State Commission, Delhi whereby the State Commission directed the respondents to refund of Rs. 8,92,973 with compensation of Rs. 50,000 in lumpsum inclusive mental agony, harassment and cost.
2. Feeling dissatisfied, by compensation awarded, the present appeal has been filed claiming interest @ 18% per annum on the deposited amount.
3. Brief facts are that the appellant booked a plot measuring 300 sq. yds. at a cost of Rs. 18 lakh and in addition thereto a sum of Rs. 1,07,400 payable towards external development charges. The complainant/appellant paid a sum of Rs. 3,06,000 and they were asked to come on the following day to sign on the "Plot Buyer's Agreement". The appellant selected the plot No. G-797. The "Plot Buyer's Agreement" despite the promise to convey as to when it would be signed, the respondent had not called upon the appellant to sign the "Plot Buyer's Agreement". In spite of repeated objections, the complainant was asked to pay amount from time-to-time. He paid a sum of Rs. 2,60,850 on 30.9.1996. He paid Rs. 1,62,658 on 2.12.1996 and Rs. 1,63,465 on 3.3.1997. By letter dated 4.5.1998, the complainant objected that the respondent neither had issued any letter of allotment nor had sent agreement of sale for execution and the development at the site was at very initial stage. The opposite party demanded money vide letters dated 18.9.1998 and 30.9.1998 and cancelled the booking due to default and lapses, leveling unfounded allegation. On 11.3.1999, the complainant inter alia requested the respondents to remit Rs. 8,92,973 towards the principal amount along with 18% interest. Repeated letters were sent on 17.4.1999 and 24,6.1999 but vide letter dated 24.7.1999 the respondent put the blame on the complainant/ appellant. The complainant ultimately filed a complaint.
4. The O.P. in its reply offered to refund the principal amount to the complainant but without any interest for the complainant was a defaulter and, therefore, he was not entitled for interest.
5. The State Commission found that the respondent was guilty for not only adopting unfair trade pratices but also found it deficient in rendering services. However, since it was felt that the delivery of the possession was not feasible. The State Commission awarded Rs. 50,000 as lumpsum compensation. This matter is squarely covered by the facts and circumstances in the case of HUDA v. Raj Mehta I (2005) CPJ 16 (SC): 2005 CTJ 351 (SC)(CP).
6. It is evident from the impugned order that the complainant/appellant after having been kept waiting for more than 6 years expecting delivery of possession of the plot and seeing that the infrastructural facilities like roads, sewerage lines, water supply, etc. were not in place, the complainant demanded back the amount deposited. It is also apparent that the plan was sanctioned only in the year 2000. Obviously the money was used in developing other blocks. Reasonable period of 2 years had already expired. One may also consider that it is not a matter of development of plot and raising construction thereon. It relates to only developing plots for the purpose of allotment and by ensuring that the infrastructure is in place.
7. In the case in hand, possession was never offered/delivered and there was delay over 3 years. In such circumstances, the respondent is directed to pay interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of each deposit till payment. The respondent shall pay the principal amount of Rs. 8,92,973 if not paid so far along with interest @ 18% p.a. in terms of judgment in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh (first), instead of lumpsum compensation of Rs. 50,000. The impugned order is required to be modified to this extent only. The appeal is allowed accordingly.