National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Rdb Legend Infrastructure (Pvt) (Ltd) & ... vs Mkn Srinivasa Rao on 18 January, 2018
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 1456 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 06/03/2017 in Complaint No. 210/2015 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh) 1. RDB LEGEND INFRASTRUCTURE (PVT) (LTD) & 2 ORS. O/o. H NO. 6-3-1238, SITH FLOOR, LEGEND FLAT, RENUKA ENCLAVE, RAJBHAVAN ROAD, SOMAJIGUDA, HYDERABAD-500482 2. MR. B. NAGESHWAR RAO MANAGING DIRECTOR, RDB LEGEND INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD., O/o. H NO. 6-3-1238, SIXTH FLOOR, LEGEND FLAT, RENUKA ENCLAVE, RAJBHAVAN ROAD, SOMAJIGUDA, HYDERABAD-5000482 3. MR. KAPEL BALDAWA JOINT MANAGING DIRECTOR, RDB LEGEND INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD., O/o. H NO. 6-3-1238, SIXTH FLOOR, LEGEND FLAT, RENUKA ENCLAVE, RAJBHAVAN ROAD, SOMAJIGUDA, HYDERABAD-5000482 ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. MKN SRINIVASA RAO R/O. PLOT NO. 632, PRATHI NAGAR: OPP: JNTU KUKATPALLY, HYDERABAD-500072 ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN,PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. M. SHREESHA,MEMBER
For the Appellant : Mr.Abhishek Jebraj, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr.Byrapaneni Suyodhan, Advocate
Dated : 18 Jan 2018 ORDER
O R D E R (ORAL)
Challenge in this Appeal, by a real estate developer, namely, RDB Legend Infrastructure (Pvt)(Ltd), and its functionaries, the Opposite Parties in the Complaint, is to the order dated 6.3.2017, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Telangana at Hyderabad (for short "the State Commission") in Consumer Complaint No.210/2015. By the impugned order, while allowing the Complaint filed by the Respondent herein, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Appellants in not delivering the flat in question, i.e. Flat No.1614 in the project, christened as Legend GRK Harmony, within the committed time, the State Commission has directed the Appellants to refund to the Complainant a sum of ₹24,26,250/- paid by him to the Appellants, together with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of last payment till realization; a compensation of ₹1,00,000/- and costs quantified at ₹5,000/-.
2. Since the factum of booking of the flat by the Complainant, vide agreement dated 13.2.2013 and his having paid a sum of ₹24,26,250/-, which includes the amount of loan of a sum of ₹12,50,000/- raised by him from LIC HFL, against a total sale consideration of ₹58,81,250/-, as also the fact that the flat in question was not ready for delivery of possession by the committed date, i.e. August 2015, is not in dispute, we deem it unnecessary to state the facts in extenso. It would suffice to note that on failure on the part of the Appellants to deliver possession of the flat within the period stipulated in the Agreement dated 13.2.2013, the Complainant issued a legal notice to them, terminating the said agreement and demanding the refund of the amount deposited by him along with interest @ 24% from the date of receipt of the same till payment, besides damages caused due to escalation of costs, loss of opportunity and mental suffering to the tune of ₹5,00,000/-. Having failed to elicit any positive response to the notice from the Appellants, the Complainant filed the Complaint in which the afore-noted directions have been issued.
3. When on 22.8.2017, the Appeal came up for motion hearing, while issuing notice to the Complainant, on the Application seeking condonation of 480 days delay in filing the Appeal as well as in the main Appeal, confined to the award of compensation and interest, the Appellants were directed to deposit a sum of ₹24,26,250/- along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of each deposit till 30.11.2017, within three weeks from that date, as a condition precedent for stay of operation of the remaining directions. Since it was stated on behalf of the Appellants that they were willing to settle the dispute, subject-matter of the Complaint, with the Complainant, it was directed that it will be open to the Complainant to withdraw the principal amount, to be deposited by the Appellants in terms of the said order. It appears that against the said order, the Appellants preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. While disposing of the SLP (C) No.28822/2017, the Hon'ble Court clarified that the amount, which the Appellants were directed to deposit in this Commission, shall not be withdrawn by the Complainant. However, as the Appellant had not made any deposit in terms of interim order dated 22.8.2017, the stay was vacated with a clarification that it will be open to the Complainant to pursue his remedy as may be available to him for enforcement of the order, subject-matter of the present Appeal.
4. In view of the afore-stated factual scenario, the short question arising for consideration is as to whether the State Commission was justified in directing the Appellants to pay to the Complainant interest @ 12% p.a. as also a lump sum compensation of ₹1,00,000/- for the delay in delivery of possession of the flat by the committed date?
5. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and bearing in mind the fact that on the one hand admittedly there was delay on the part of the Appellants in completing the flat in question within the stipulated time and even by the time the Complaint was filed, sometime in the year 2015, the same was not complete and on the other hand there was some default on the part of the Complainant in not remitting the balance 60% of the total sale consideration in terms of Clause 4(a) of the agreement to sell dated 7.2.2013, we are of the opinion that the interest as well as the compensation awarded by the State Commission in favour of the Complainant is on the higher side. Hence, balancing the equities between the parties in the light of the afore-stated defaults on the part of both the parties, we are of the opinion that the interests of justice would be sub-served by directing the Appellants to pay to the Complainant interest @ 11% p.a. on the afore-stated amount of ₹24,26,250/-, instead of 12% p.a., from the date of receipt of payments till 28.2.2018, as directed by the State Commission along with costs, quantified at ₹25,000/-.
6. Consequently, the Appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above.
7. The amount due to the Complainant in terms of this order shall be remitted to him directly by means of a Demand Draft on or before 28.2.2018, failing which the said amount shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of this order till actual realization.
8. The Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
9. The travel and allied expenses, as already directed, shall also be remitted by the Appellants to the Complainant along with the afore-stated amount, if the same have not been remitted so far.
10. The statutory amount deposited by the Appellants at the time of filing of the Appeal shall be refunded to them.
......................J D.K. JAIN PRESIDENT ...................... M. SHREESHA MEMBER