State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mda/Hsc/112 Rmtc Employees Housing ... vs P. Karuppiah, S/O. Peria Karuppan, ... on 30 December, 2011
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE : Honble Thiru Justice M.THANIKACHALAM PRESIDENT Thiru. J. JAYARAM, M.A.,M.L., (JUDICIAL) MEMBER COMMON ORDER IN F.A.NO.36/2010, 37/2010, 38/2010, 39/2010, 40/2010, 41/2010 (Against orders in the original complaints on file of the DCDRF, Dindigul) DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF DECEMBER 2011 F.A.NO.36/2010 (Against C.O.P.NO.67/2004) MDA/HSC/112 RMTC Employees Housing Co-operative Welfare Society Rep. by its Special Officer Door No.36, Transport Nagar Madurai NH Road N. Panjampattu via M/s./ V. Manisekaran Alamrathupatti (Post), Dindigul District Appellant / 1st Opposite party Vs. 1. P. Karuppiah S/o. Peria Karuppan 19/1, Sourastrapuram 2nd Street M/s. K. Kannan, Counsel for Nagal Nagar, Dindigul Town Respondents/ Complainants 2. Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd (HDFC) Rep. by its Development Officer 726, Avinashi Road M/s. Sampathkumar Associates Coimbatore- 641 018 Respondents / 2nd opposite party F.A.NO.37/2010 (Against C.O.P.NO.69/2004) MDA/HSC/112 RMTC Employees Housing Co-operative Welfare Society Rep. by its Special Officer Door No.36, Transport Nagar Madurai NH Road N. Panjampattu via M/s./ V. Manisekaran Alamrathupatti (Post), Dindigul District Appellant / 1st Opposite party Vs. 1. S. Selvaraj S/o. Santhanam Kollanoor, Nathapatty-Post Veasandur- Taluk, M/s. K. Kannan, Counsel for Dindigul District Respondents/ Complainants 2. Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd (HDFC) Rep. by its Development Officer 726, Avinashi Road M/s. Sampathkumar Associates Coimbatore- 641 018 Respondents / 2nd opposite party F.A.NO.38/2010 (Against C.O.P.NO.14/2005) MDA/HSC/112 RMTC Employees Housing Co-operative Welfare Society Rep. by its Special Officer Door No.36, Transport Nagar Madurai NH Road N. Panjampattu via M/s./ V. Manisekaran Alamrathupatti (Post), Dindigul District Appellant / 1st Opposite party Vs. 1. A. Thanasamy S/o. Arockiam Renganayagi Nagar Siluvathur Road Balakrishnapuram- Post M/s. K. Kannan, Counsel for Dindigul Respondents/ Complainants 2. Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd (HDFC) Rep. by its Development Officer 726, Avinashi Road M/s. Sampathkumar Associates Coimbatore- 641 018 Respondents / 2nd opposite party F.A.NO.39/2010 (Against C.O.P.NO.66/2004) MDA/HSC/112 RMTC Employees Housing Co-operative Welfare Society Rep. by its Special Officer Door No.36, Transport Nagar Madurai NH Road N. Panjampattu via M/s./ V. Manisekaran Alamrathupatti (Post), Dindigul District Appellant / 1st Opposite party Vs. 1. P. Mani S/o. Paniappa Gounder Perumal Kovil Patti, Alagapuri- Post Veasandur- Taluk, M/s. K. Kannan, Counsel for Dindigul District Respondents/ Complainants 2. Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd (HDFC) Rep. by its Development Officer 726, Avinashi Road M/s. Sampathkumar Associates Coimbatore- 641 018 Respondents / 2nd opposite party F.A.NO.40/2010 (Against C.O.P.NO.70/2004) MDA/HSC/112 RMTC Employees Housing Co-operative Welfare Society Rep. by its Special Officer Door No.36, Transport Nagar Madurai NH Road N. Panjampattu via M/s./ V. Manisekaran Alamrathupatti (Post), Dindigul District Appellant / 1st Opposite party Vs. 1. M. Lenin S/o. Meenakshi Sundaram, 4/197- Gurusamy Nagar NGO Colony Nagamalai Puduthukottai M/s. K. Kannan, Counsel for Madurai- 625 019 Respondents/ Complainants 2. Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd (HDFC) Rep. by its Development Officer 726, Avinashi Road M/s. Sampathkumar Associates Coimbatore- 641 018 Respondents / 2nd opposite party F.A.NO.41/2010 (Against C.O.P.NO.15/2005) MDA/HSC/112 RMTC Employees Housing Co-operative Welfare Society Rep. by its Special Officer Door No.36, Transport Nagar Madurai NH Road N. Panjampattu via M/s./ V. Manisekaran Alamrathupatti (Post), Dindigul District Appellant / 1st Opposite party Vs. 1. R. Immanuel Rajasekar S/o. Rayappan No.16-H/2, Aathumedu Thirupathi Illam, Vedasandur M/s. K. Kannan, Counsel for Dindigul District Respondents/ Complainants 2. Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd (HDFC) Rep. by its Development Officer 726, Avinashi Road M/s. Sampathkumar Associates Coimbatore- 641 018 Respondents / 2nd opposite party The complainants filed complaints before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for certain direction against the opposite parties. The District Forum allowed the complaints. Against the said order, these appeals are preferred by the 1st opposite party in each complaint, in the above appeals, praying to set aside the orders of the District Forum dt.27.11.2007 in O.P.Nos.36/2010, 37/2010, 38/2010, 39/2010, 40/2010, and 41/2010 These appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 29.11.2011. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsels on either side, upon perusing the written arguments, documents, and lower court records, this commission made the following order: COMMON ORDER
M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT
1. The 1st opposite party, in CC.No.66/2004, 67/2004, 69/2004, 69/2004, 70/2004 and 14/2005 and 15/2005 on the file of DCDRF are the appellants in FA.No.39/10, 36/2010, 37/2010, 40/2010, 38/2010 and 41/2010 respectively.
2. Common facts necessary for disposal of all the cases:
The complainant(s)/ first respondent in all the appeals, who were employed as conductor or otherwise in Rani Mangammal Transport Corporation, are the members of the 1st opposite party society/ appellant, which was constituted for the welfare of the members of the, members of the Rani Mangammal Transport Corporation, administered originally, by the president, and board Governors.
3. The 1st opposite party in the year 1998, for the purpose of putting up individual construction, to the members of the society, wherein the complainants are also members acquired kinds and unfilled applications. Responding to the notice, totally 374 applications were submitted, and the members were requested to pay a sum of Rs.16800/- towards the cost of site, and some more amount available, from their provident fund, towards the cost of the basement foundation for each house. Thus by way of payment, as well as by way of loan, including contribution from the provident fund, each complainants, have paid the amount as mentioned in the table shown herein.
Sl.
No. Name CC.No F.A.No. Refund of amount claimed/ paid House No. allotted Value of engineer for the house
1. P. Karuppaiah 67/2004 36/2010 2,35,000 359 1,32,810
2. S. Selvaraj 69/2004 37/2010 1,93,850 231 1,35,766
3. A. Thangasamy 14/2005 38/2010 1,85,000 134 1,46,006
4. P. Mani 66/2004 39/2010 2,13,850 204 1,37,762
5. M. Lenin 70/2004 40/2010 1,77,500 180 1,49,736
6. R. Immanuel Rajasekar 15/2005 41/2010 1,93,850 95 1,63,014
4. The 1st opposite party had agreed to put up construction, measuring 490 sq.ft. @ Rs.359/- per sq. ft., estimating the total cost of construction, accordingly. The 2nd opposite party has paid the loan amount straight away to the 1st opposite party, even without informing the borrower. In addition, 1st opposite party had requested the members, including the complainants, to pay a further sum of Rs.30000/-, which was also paid. After much delay, 200 houses were completed, and house Nos. were allotted to each complainants, as shown in the above table. But as agreed, within the stipulated time, houses were not constructed and handed over and the house constructed, had damaged such as cracks in the houses, improper plastering, damaged in the floor construction etc., making the house unfit for habitation, that should be construed as deficiency in service, since despite repeated request, the defects were not rectified. The 2nd respondent, who had advanced the loan also failed to watch the progress effectively, which is deficiency in service.
5. In view of the irregularities, in the society, and the houses were not handed over within the stipulated time, Tamilnadu Arasu Pokkuvaathu Tholilalar Sangam, have filed writ petitions, before the Honble High Court, wherein a direction has been issued to conduct an enquiry under Sec.81 of the Tamilnadu Cooperative Societies Act, and accordingly enquiry, conducted, charted Engineer estimated the value of each house, as shown in the table. Because of the non-handing over of the house to the complainants, in time, they were compelled to live in rented house, paying rent, causing loss, in addition to mental agony, for which also the complainants are entitled to compensation. Even till today the opposite parties have not completed the constructions, and handed over possession of the building, and therefore, each complainant is entitled to refund of the amount paid by them, as shown in the table, in addition to compensation of various amounts, as detailed in the prayer column of each complaint. Thus alleging deficiency, the complainants have filed, separate complaint, against the opposite parties.
6. Common defense of the 1st opposite party The 1st opposite party/ appellant, questioning the jurisdiction of the consumer forum, admitting that the complainants are members of the society, as well in a way admitting the amount collected, as well as the loan sanctioned by the 2nd opposite party, resisted the case interalia contending, that because of the irregularity committed by the then board, there was delay, resulting reduction of interest also, for the loan amount payable by the complainant, that as per the decision of the society, except a few person, others have accepted to take delivery of possession of the house as such, that all the complainants have not paid the agreed amount, that the contractors have absconded, because of the irregularity, for which the society cannot be held responsible, since there is no individual contract, between the complainant and the 1st opposite party, either for construction of the house, or handing over possession, within the specified time, that when admittedly the complainants being the members of the society, are liable to pay loan amount, as well as value of the house to the 1st opposite party, and it is unfortunate, consumer complaints were filed on frivolous grounds, claiming refund of the amount, and that since they have not committed any deficiency in service, they are not liable to pay any amount, much less the amount paid by the complainants, thereby praying for the dismissal of all the cases.
7. The 2nd opposite party, in all the cases filing separate written version, had taken the same stand viz. that as per the individual application given by the complainants, loan facility was extended, and as agreed by the complainants, amounts were paid to the 1st opposite party, who had agreed to deduct the instalments, from their pay, that except advancement of loan to the complainants, they have nothing to do with the construction or the materials used, whether it is substandard or otherwise, and this being the position, they have not committed any negligence or deficiency, and therefore the claim against them, are frivolous, liable to be dismissed, denying further averments also.
8. In all the cases, though separate judgements were rendered, the question raised before us, in the appeals are more or less one and the same, with respect to deficiency, followed by compensation, as well as interest, and the quantum of amount. Therefore, as agreed by the parties, all the appeals are taken together and common order is passed, despite the District Forum had passed separate order, and in the separate orders more or less, since reached the same conclusion, regarding the merits and demerits of the cases.
9. The prayer in CC.66/2004, by the complainant reads:
a. Directing the respondents either jointly and severally to repay a sum of Rs.2,13,850/- with interest at 18% p.a., atleast from 21.9.2000, the date of failure to handover the fully completed constructed house to the petitioner b. Directing the Respondents either jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards damages and compensation caused to the injury, loss, mental agony, great hardship etc., for the failure to handover the house to the petitioner within the stipulated period;
c. Directing the respondents either jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.67500/- towards the rent amounts paid by the petitioner after the stipulated period 21.9.2000 till the end of June 2006 for the failure to handover the completed house to the petitioner within the stipulated period;
d. Directing the respondents either jointly and severally to pay the future rent amount at the rate of RS.1500/- per moth from June 2006 till the date of disposal of this complaint for the failure to handover the completed house to the petitioner within the stipulated period.
10. The District Forum, based upon the pleadings, supported by affidavits as well as Ex.A1 to A5 in that case, reaching a conclusion, that there was deficiency and excess amount collected by the 1st opposite party, than the value of the house, has issued a direction, directing the 1st opposite party alone, which reads We direct the 1st Opposite party to refund Rs.76,088/- to the complainant with 9% interest from 9.5.2001 till the date of realization of the amount and to pay Rs.30000/- as compensation for mental agony, sufferings and losses with 9% interest from the date of complaint till realization and Rs.5000/- as costs within three months from the date of this order, dismissing the rest of the claim, as well as dismissing the case against the 2nd opposite party.
11. The complainant in CC.No.67/2004 by name Karuppiah, had prayed the following relief:
a. Directing the respondents either jointly and severally to repay a sum of Rs.2,35,000/- with interest at 18% p.a., atleast from 21.9.2000, the date of failure to handover the fully completed constructed house to the petitioner b. Directing the Respondents either jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages and compensation caused to the injury, loss, mental agony, great hardship etc., for the failure to handover the house to the petitioner within the stipulated period;
c. Directing the respondents either jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.67500/- towards the rent amounts paid by the petitioner after the stipulated period 21.9.2000 till the end of June 2006 for the failure to handover the completed house to the petitioner within the stipulated period;
d. Directing the respondents either jointly and severally to pay the future rent amount at the rate of RS.1500/- per moth from June 2006 till the date of disposal of this complaint for the failure to handover the completed house to the petitioner within the stipulated period.
12. The District Forum, based upon the pleadings, supported by affidavits as well as Ex.A1 to A5 in that case, reaching a conclusion, that there was deficiency and excess amount collected by the 1st opposite paty, than the value of the house, has issued a direction, directing the 1st opposite party alone, which reads We direct the 1st Opposite party to refund Rs.76,040/- to the complainant with 9% interest from 9.5.2001 till the date of realization of the amount and to pay Rs.30000/- as compensation for mental agony, sufferings and losses with 9% interest from the date of complaint till realization and Rs.5000/- as costs within three months from the date of this order, dismissing the rest of the claim, as well as dismissing the case against the 2nd opposite party.
13. The complainant by name S.Selvaraj in CC.No.69/2004, had prayed for the following relief:
a. Directing the respondents either jointly and severally to repay a sum of Rs.1,93,850/- with interest at 18% p.a., atleast from 21.9.2000, the date of failure to handover the fully completed constructed house to the petitioner b. Directing the Respondents either jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages and compensation caused to the injury, loss, mental agony, great hardship etc., for the failure to handover the house to the petitioner within the stipulated period;
c. Directing the respondents either jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.45000/- towards the rent amounts paid by the petitioner after the stipulated period 21.9.2000 till the end of June 2006 for the failure to handover the completed house to the petitioner within the stipulated period;
d. Directing the respondents either jointly and severally to pay the future rent amount at the rate of Rs.1500/- per moth from June 2006 till the date of disposal of this complaint for the failure to handover the completed house to the petitioner within the stipulated period.
14. The District Forum, based upon the pleadings, supported by affidavits, as well as Ex.A1 to A5 in that case, reaching a conclusion, that there was deficiency and excess amount collected by the 1st opposite party, than the value of the house, has issued a direction, directing the 1st opposite party alone, which reads We direct the 1st Opposite party to refund Rs.58,084/- to the complainant with 9% interest from 9.5.2001 till the date of realization of the amount and to pay Rs.30000/- as compensation for mental agony, sufferings and losses with 9% interest from the date of complaint till realization and Rs.5000/- as costs within three months from the date of this order, dismissing the rest of the claim, as well as dismissing the case against the 2nd opposite party.
15. The complainant by name M. Lenin in CC.No.70/2004, had prayed for the following relief:
a. Directing the respondents either jointly and severally to repay a sum of Rs.1,77,500/- with interest at 18% p.a., atleast from 21.9.2000, the date of failure to handover the fully completed constructed house to the petitioner b. Directing the Respondents either jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages and compensation caused to the injury, loss, mental agony, great hardship etc., for the failure to handover the house to the petitioner within the stipulated period;
c. Directing the respondents either jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.67500/- towards the rent amounts paid by the petitioner after the stipulated period 21.9.2000 till the end of June 2006 for the failure to handover the completed house to the petitioner within the stipulated period;
d. Directing the respondents either jointly and severally to pay the future rent amount at the rate of Rs.1500/- per moth from June 2006 till the date of disposal of this complaint for the failure to handover the completed house to the petitioner within the stipulated period.
16. The District Forum, based upon the pleadings, supported by affidavits, as well as Ex.A1 to A4 in that case, reaching a conclusion, that there was deficiency and excess amount collected by the 1st opposite party, than the value of the house, has issued a direction, directing the 1st opposite party alone, which reads We direct the 1st Opposite party to refund Rs.26,764/- to the complainant with 9% interest from 9.5.2001 till the date of realization of the amount and to pay Rs.30000/- as compensation for mental agony, sufferings and losses with 9% interest from the date of complaint till realization and Rs.5000/- as costs within three months from the date of this order, dismissing the rest of the claim, as well as dismissing the case against the 2nd opposite party.
17. The complainant by name M. Lenin in CC.No.70/2004, had prayed for the following relief:
a. Directing the respondents either jointly and severally to repay a sum of Rs.1,77,500/- with interest at 18% p.a., atleast from 21.9.2000, the date of failure to handover the fully completed constructed house to the petitioner b. Directing the Respondents either jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages and compensation caused to the injury, loss, mental agony, great hardship etc., for the failure to handover the house to the petitioner within the stipulated period;
c. Directing the respondents either jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.67500/- towards the rent amounts paid by the petitioner after the stipulated period 21.9.2000 till the end of June 2006 for the failure to handover the completed house to the petitioner within the stipulated period;
d. Directing the respondents either jointly and severally to pay the future rent amount at the rate of Rs.1500/- per moth from June 2006 till the date of disposal of this complaint for the failure to handover the completed house to the petitioner within the stipulated period.
18. The District Forum, based upon the pleadings, supported by affidavits, as well as Ex.A1 to A4 in that case, reaching a conclusion, that there was deficiency and excess amount collected by the 1st opposite party, than the value of the house, has issued a direction, directing the 1st opposite party alone, which reads We direct the 1st Opposite party to refund Rs.26,764/- to the complainant with 9% interest from 9.5.2001 till the date of realization of the amount and to pay Rs.30000/- as compensation for mental agony, sufferings and losses with 9% interest from the date of complaint till realization and Rs.5000/- as costs within three months from the date of this order, dismissing the rest of the claim, as well as dismissing the case against the 2nd opposite party.
19. The complainant by name A. Thangasamy in CC.No.14/2005, had prayed for the following relief:
a. Directing the respondents either jointly and severally to repay a sum of Rs.1,85,000/- with interest at 18% p.a., atleast from 21.9.2000, the date of failure to handover the fully completed constructed house to the petitioner b. Directing the Respondents either jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages and compensation caused to the injury, loss, mental agony, great hardship etc., for the failure to handover the house to the petitioner within the stipulated period;
c. Directing the respondents either jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.54000/- towards the rent amounts paid by the petitioner after the stipulated period 21.9.2000 till the end of August 2004 for the failure to handover the completed house to the petitioner within the stipulated period;
d. Directing the respondents either jointly and severally to pay the future rent amount at the rate of Rs.1200/- per moth from August 2004 till the date of disposal of this complaint for the failure to handover the completed house to the petitioner within the stipulated period.
20. The District Forum, based upon the pleadings, supported by affidavits, as well as Ex.A1 & A2 in that case, reaching a conclusion, that there was deficiency and excess amount collected by the 1st opposite party, than the value of the house, has issued a direction, directing the 1st opposite party alone, which reads We direct the 1st Opposite party to refund Rs.38,994/- to the complainant with 9% interest from 9.5.2001 till the date of realization of the amount and to pay Rs.30000/- as compensation for mental agony, sufferings and losses with 9% interest from the date of complaint till realization and Rs.5000/- as costs within three months from the date of this order, dismissing the rest of the claim, as well as dismissing the case against the 2nd opposite party.
21. The complainant by name R. Immanuvel Rajasekar in CC.No.15/2005, had prayed for the following relief:
a. Directing the respondents either jointly and severally to repay a sum of Rs.1,93,850/- with interest at 18% p.a., atleast from 21.9.2000, the date of failure to handover the fully completed constructed house to the petitioner b. Directing the Respondents either jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages and compensation caused to the injury, loss, mental agony, great hardship etc., for the failure to handover the house to the petitioner within the stipulated period;
c. Directing the respondents either jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.45000/- towards the rent amounts paid by the petitioner after the stipulated period 21.9.2000 till the end of August 2004 for the failure to handover the completed house to the petitioner within the stipulated period;
d. Directing the respondents either jointly and severally to pay the future rent amount at the rate of Rs.1000/- per moth from August 2004 till the date of disposal of this complaint for the failure to handover the completed house to the petitioner within the stipulated period.
22. The District Forum, based upon the pleadings, supported by affidavits, as well as Ex.A1 to A4 in that case, reaching a conclusion, that there was deficiency and excess amount collected by the 1st opposite party, than the value of the house, has issued a direction, directing the 1st opposite party alone, which reads We direct the 1st Opposite party to refund Rs.30,836/- to the complainant with 9% interest from 9.5.2001 till the date of realization of the amount and to pay Rs.30000/- as compensation for mental agony, sufferings and losses with 9% interest from the date of complaint till realization and Rs.5000/- as costs within three months from the date of this order, dismissing the rest of the claim, as well as dismissing the case against the 2nd opposite party.
23. Aggrieved by the above said orders, the 1st opposite party alone has preferred all the above said appeals, and none of the complainants have preferred any appeal, either questioning the dismissal of the case, against the 2nd opposite party, or claiming enhancement of the amount, since major claims were negatived.
Therefore, in all the appeals, we need not to go into details, about the amounts paid, or ordered to be paid by the District Forum, in view of the further fact, the quantum of amount ordered to be refunded as excess amount, taking into account the amount paid by the complainant, as well as the value fixed by the engineer, for the house, is not in dispute. In fact in all the appeals, main points urged before us, on behalf of the appellants are, that the complainants are not entitled to interest for the amount ordered to be refunded, and that they are also not entitled to any compensation, in view of the fact, when possession was offered, they have not taken possession of the building, while majority of the members, have taken possession of the building, which are opposed.
24. It is the common case of the parties, that the complainants are the members of, then RMTC Employees Housing Cooperative Welfare Society (1st opposite party) hereinafter called Society. The society for the welfare of its member, who are the workers of the transport corporation, had decided to acquire or purchase lands, for the purpose of constructing houses, in order to provide accommodation to the members.
Based upon the advertisement, it is also an admitted fact, that the complainants, being the members of the society, have submitted their applications, paid some amounts also, though not as pleaded in each complaint, but as concluded by the District Forum, in its judgement, which is not disputed, even by the complainants/ 1st respondent before us. Therefore, we take the amount quantified by the District Forum, as the correct amount paid by each complainant, since the loan amount also not in dispute, thus concluding the 1st opposite party, had received the loan amount, as well as the amount paid by each complainants, for providing house.
25. Admittedly, as desired by the society, due to some irregularity or otherwise, which we are not concerned at this stage, construction of the houses were not completed in time, and therefore the aggrieved members of the society, who have formed themselves a sangam, called Tamilnadu Arasu Pokkuvarathu Thozhilalar Sangam, had filed writ petition before the Honble High Court of Judicature at Madras, wherein a direction was issued to consider the representation of the sangam, and take appropriate action. Based upon the above order, as detailed in the complaint, which is also admitted by the 1st opposite party, an enquiry was conducted under Sec.81 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, and in the said enquiry, a chartered engineer of the 1st respondent had inspected each house, including the houses allotted to the complainants, as shown in the above table, and fixed the value of the house, and based upon the said value, the 1st opposite party issued notice, as seen from Ex.A4 and A5, in some of the cases, requesting to take possession of the house as it is, accepting the value given by the engineer, which is also shown in the above table, for each house, not disputed before us.
26. The District Forum, in each case, has decided, what was the actual amount paid by each complainant, which is not challenged as incorrect finding by the complainants, drawing our attention to any of the documents. Therefore, as said above, the findings rendered by the District Forum, regarding the actual payment is taken as correct. The District Forum, has also taken into account, that there was some slackness, on the part of the complainants also, in not taking delivery of possession, and on that basis alone, major reliefs were negatived, not challenged. In each case, taking the actual value of each house, as given by the chartered engineer, which is shown in the last column of the above table, the District Forum has come to a conclusion, that the 1st opposite party collected excess amount, as pointed out in the result portion, as extracted above, which is also not challenged. Therefore, we conclude, that the order of the District Forum, regarding the refund the amounts, as per the operative portion of the judgement, has to be confirmed, and it is also not the case of the learned counsel for the appellants before us, that the quantum arrived by the District Forum, ordering refund is excess or incorrect, or otherwise invalid etc.
27. The District Forum, directed the 1st opposite party to pay interest for the amount ordered to be refunded, from 9.5.2001, till realization @ 9% p.a., which cannot be faulted, since admittedly the complainant had borrowed loan, from the 2nd opposite party, agreeing to pay more interest originally, which was subsequently reduced to 9.25%, even as admitted by the 2nd opposite party, in their written version. When they were directed to pay more interest, then there is nothing wrong in directing to pay 9% interest, for the excess amount collected by the 1st opposite party, and in this view, we find no justification to interfere with the grant of interest, for the refund of the amount, and that should be sustained.
28. The learned counsel for the appellants, would contend that when the District Forum has ordered interest, for the amount payable to the complainant, which they have paid legitimately, then the forum is not justified in awarding compensation of Rs.30000/-, as well awarding cost of Rs.5000/-, in a case summary nature, where court fee also not paid to that extent. The deficiency alleged had occurred, not only by the act of the 1st opposite party in choosing contractor, but also by the members of the society also, probably including the complainants, on whose consent, contractors might have been chosen. Therefore for the mistake committed by the contractors, when we order refund of the amount, we feel the society should not be doubly penalized, ordering compensation also, and it is also the settled position, when interest is awarded for the amount payable to the complainant, based upon deficiency, no compensation need be granted, and in this view, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants, though it is objected by the learned counsel of the complainant, we are inclined to set aside the order of compensation, as well reduce the cost of the litigation from Rs.5000/- to Rs.2500/-, or Rs.3000/- in all the cases, considering the position of the society, and its functioning, as well their offer to handover the house, which may be beneficial, to the complainants considering the market value of the day. For the above said reasons, all the appeals are to be allowed in part, setting aside the compensation alone, as well reducing the cost, otherwise confirming the order of the District Forum.
29. In the result, all the appeals are allowed in part, modifying the order of the District Forum in CC.Nos.67/2004, 69/2004, 14/2005, 66/2004, 70/2004 and 15/2005, dt.27.11.2007, setting aside the compensation to the entirerity, and reducing the cost from RS.5000/- or Rs.3000/- to Rs.2500/- in all the cases, confirming the rest of the order, making no order as to cost, in these appeals.
J. JAYARAM M. THANIKACHALAM JUDICIALMEMBER PRESIDENT INDEX : YES / NO Rsh/d/mtj/Bench-1/Insurance