State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M.P.Ahuja vs M/S Megacity(Bangalore) Developers ... on 16 September, 2011
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. DATED THIS THE 16th OF SEPTEMBER 2010 PRESENT HONBLE JUSTICE MR.K. RAMANNA : PRESIDENT SRI. A.M. BENNUR : MEMBER SMT. RAMA ANANTH : MEMBER Appeal No.136/2011 M.P.Ahuja, S/o Parasuram Ahuja, aged about 77 years, residing at No.14/1, Sevakshethra, Second Floor, 6th Cross, Gandhinagar,Bangalore-560009 (By Shri/Smt S.R. Sreenivasamurthy) 1. M/s Megacity( Bangalore) Developers And Developers and Builders, represented by its Managing Director At present Chairman, Karnataaka Silk Industries Marketing Board, Having Office at No.120, Mega Tower, K.H.Road, (By Shri/Smt Mayanna Gowda) Complainant before the DF .Appellant -Versus- Opposite Party before the DF .Respondent O R D E R
HONBLE JUSTICE MR.K. RAMANNA : PRESIDENT This appeal is filed by the appellant / complainant challenging the order dated 30.11.2010 passed by the I Additional District Forum, Seshadripuram, Bangalore in complaint No.1736/09 whereby the respondent herein is directed to pay to the appellant a sum of Rs.48,000/- within 30 days from the date of the order failing which the respondent shall pay the said sum with interest at 12% pa from 27.7.1995 until payment within 60 days with costs of Rs.2000/-. Not being satisfied with the said order, the appellant is now before us in this appeal for enhancement.
2. The appellant also filed an application along with an affidavit to condone the delay of 9 days in filing this appeal.
3. In this appeal we have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. We have also perused the impugned order along with the findings recorded by the District Forum. The point that arises for our consideration in this appeal is that whether:
a) the appellant has shown sufficient and reasonable grounds to condone the delay of nine days in preferring this appeal?
b) the DF order is justified in awarding only 12% interest on the amount paid by the appellant?
4. Point
a):- The appellant along with the appeal memorandum also filed an application supported by an affidavit to condone the delay of nine days in preferring this appeal. Since the delay in filing the appeal is negligible, we condone the delay.
5. Point
b):- It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant argued that if the appellant had deposited the amount of Rs.48,000/- in any business expecting the meager profit he would have gained Rs.4,00,000/- but the DF without looking into this aspect has passed the impugned order. It is further argued on behalf of the appellant the Forum failed to consider the mental agony suffered by the appellant and awarded only a meager amount and therefore prayed for enhancement of compensation.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the impugned order passed by the District Forum is well reasoned and that therefore the appeal filed by the appellant / complainant is liable to be dismissed.
7. In the light of the arguments submitted by the counsel for both parties, it is necessary for us to look into the merits of the case. No doubt, the appellant / complainant has deposited a sum of Rs.48,000/- with the respondent for allotment of a site on 27.7.1995. But no layout has been formed and no development was done.
8. The appellant has paid his hard earned savings money to the respondent. But in spite of repeated approach to the respondent, the respondent failed to allot a site and register it. The fond hope of appellant to construct a house of his own on the site to be allotted by the respondent went futile. Therefore he filed the complaint before the DF seeking for a direction to pay damages of Rs.4,00,000/- or alternatively to allot a site with a higher dimension for having caused the delay.
9. The District Forum directed the respondent / OP to pay the sum of Rs.48,000/- within 30 days from the date of the impugned order. In case of failure to do so, directed the OP, to pay interest at 12% per annum from 27.7.1995 until payment, in our view is not justified.
10. This Commission in the earlier cases followed by the decision of the Honorable Apex Court and the National Commission awarded interest at 18% per annum on the amounts paid by the litigant consumers. After having heard the learned counsel for both the parties and considering the mental agony that might have been suffered by the appellant, in our view the impugned order requires to be modified by enhancing only the rate of interest on the amount paid by the appellant / complainant. Accordingly, we pass the following:
O R D E R Appeal is allowed. The order passed by the District Forum in complaint No.1736/09 is modified directing the respondent / OP to pay Rs.48,000/- to the appellant / complainant with interest at 18% per annum from 27.7.1995 till payment.
In so far as the cost awarded by the District Forum in favour of appellant is concerned is kept undisturbed.
The respondent / OP is directed to comply with this order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER Nrr*