State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shri Sakharam Gangadhar Gokhale vs City And Industrial Development Corp Of ... on 4 October, 2011
04/10/2011
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
First Appeal No. A/04/2265
(Arisen out of Order Dated 19/08/2004 in Case No. 329/2003 of District Thane)
1. SHRI SAKHARAM
GANGADHAR GOKHALE
101, LAXMAN, AYODHYA
NAGAR, MANPADA
RD, DOMBIVALI(E), THANE-421201.
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. CITY AND
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORP OF MAHARASHTRA
CIDCO BHAVAN, NAVI
MUMBAI-400614.
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Hon'ble Mr. P.N. Kashalkar PRESIDING
MEMBER
Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar Member PRESENT:
Both parties are absent.
ORAL ORDER Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member This is an undated appeal since 2004. This appeal was placed before us for disposal on 08/08/2011. On that date, notice on our Internet Board was published and one copy of Board was also displayed on Notice Board of this Commission. On that date, since both the parties were absent, we directed the office to issue notices to both the parties and adjourned it today. On 09/09/2011 office has sent notices to both the parties. But, both the parties are absent. Hence, we decide to dispose of this appeal on merits on perusal of the impugned order.
2. We perused the impugned judgement delivered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thane. Appellant who was complainant had filed consumer complaint against the CIDCO.
Appellants case in short was that he had applied for a house under a scheme namely DRS 87 floated by the CIDCO/opponent by giving cheque of `5,000/- to the opponent which was confirmed by the CIDCO by their letter dated 07/07/1992 and a duplicate copy of which was received by the complainant on 10/05/1993. According to this letter, the opponent was to refund the registration amount along with 7% interest on cancellation of the application.
According to the complainant, he cancelled the registration and demanded refund of `5,000/- along with interest. The complainant however received only the original amount and did not receive interest from the opponent. Hence, he filed consumer complaint.
3. Opponent filed written version and pleaded that cut off date of 31/03/2000 was decided by management of CIDCO for returning the original amount with interest. It was notified to all the concerned people through the newspaper. The application for cancellation of the complainant was received after that date and therefore, it was not liable to pay interest on booking amount of the complainant. Complainant further filed rejoinder and pleaded that from the documents submitted by the opponent, it was clear till 1999 opponent was refunding the amount with 14% interest and thereafter, it was reduced to 7% p.a. Opponent should have notified their cut off date individually to every applicant which they had not done. The complainant therefore claimed interest of 14% upto 1999 and thereafter revised interest @ 7% p.a.
4. After going through the documents, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum was of the view that the decision taken by the management of the CIDCO to decide unilaterally the cut off date was improper and not notifying the same to the applicant individually was also improper.
Therefore, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum directed the CIDCO to pay interest @ 7% p.a. on the amount of `5,000/- which was already refunded to the complainant on his cancelling the booking of the house. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum simply directed the CIDCO to pay interest @ 7% p.a. from 17/07/19987 to 31/03/2000 and also awarded `1,000/- as compensation to the complainant. Not satisfied with this order, the org. complainant has filed this appeal.
5. On perusal of the impugned order, we are finding that the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum allowing the interest @ 7% p.a. on the amount of `5,000/- consequent upon his cancellation of booking of the house was just, proper and it is sustainable in law. The authority like CIDCO cannot unilaterally decide the cut off date for refund of money with interest. If they had taken a decision they should have notified the same well in advance before the cut off date to the applicant who had made booking and who had desirous of cancelling the booking. Since, the complainant/appellant herein was not notifying individually about fixing of cut off date, the complainant was deprived of refund of money with interest @ 7% p.a. and therefore, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum held that there was deficiency in service on the part of CIDCO and directed the CIDCO to pay interest @ 7% p.a. on the amount of `5,000/- for the period during which time the amount was lying with the CIDCO. Said order in our view is liable to be upheld. We find no substance in the appeal seeking enhanced interest and compensation. Hence, we pass the following order :-
-: ORDER :-
1. Appeal stands dismissed.
2. No order as to costs.
3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced Dated 4th October 2011.
[Hon'ble Mr. P.N. Kashalkar] PRESIDING MEMBER [Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar] Member dd