State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
City & Industrial Development ... vs Shri Atulkumar Kashinath Taskar on 11 September, 2008
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA STATE FIRST APPEAL NO.647/2000 Date of Filing:- 24/03/2000 IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.77/1996 Date of Order:- 11/09/2008 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM,RAIGAD-ALIBAD City & Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited, CIDCO Bhavan, C.B.D. Belapur, Konkan Bhavan, Navi Mumbai ... Appellant (Org. Opponent) -Versus Shri Atulkumar Kashinath Taskar, Sarkhel Kanhoji Aangre Nagar, B-11/2, Alibag, District-Raigad ... Respondent (Org.Complainant) Corum :- Mr.P.N.Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member, Smt.S.P.Lale, Honble Member.
Present :- Mr.P.B.Kadam, Adv. for the Appellant.
None present for the Respondent.
O R A L O R D E R Per Mr.P.N.Kashalkar,Honble Presiding Judicial Member
1) Being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the District Consumer Forum, Alibag in Consumer Complaint No.77/1996, decided on 7/1/2000 whereby, while allowing the complaint, the Forum below directed CIDCO to refund amount of Rs.1,56,475/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum to the complainant within two months from 14/1/1994 till realization of the amount, the original O.P./ CIDCO has filed this appeal taking strong exception to the award passed by the Forum below.
2) Facts to the extent material may be stated as under :
3) The CIDCO published an advertisement and offered to allot tenements to the public at large. Accordingly respondent/complainant made an application for allotment of tenement. In the said application, applicant agreed and accepted specific condition that he was making application only for the purpose of demand survey and that he is not entitled to get allotment of tenement or flat in Navi Mumbai. He understands that CIDCO will intimate him the final terms and conditions of the offer indicating area, sale price etc. He agreed that no interest would be paid on the amount paid as registration charges for demand and if he is not allotted any tenement by CIDCO amount of registration charges would be refunded without any interest. According to the offer, the complainant was allotted flat at Kalamboli vide letter dated 30/12/1992.
The complainant was to make payment of flat in two installments. Price of flat was Rs.1,22,100/-. However, the complainant did not make payment within stipulated time. Therefore, show cause notice was given to the complainant for cancellation of allotment. Thereafter, the complainant made payment of price on 14/1/1994 and also paid delayed payment charges of Rs.27,880/- on 23/12/1994.
Thereafter, the complainant made request for allotment of larger flat. His request was accepted and flat of higher area was allotted to him vide latter dated 6/12/1994.
Marketing Officer of CIDCO permitted complainant to mortgage the said flat for raising the loan but the complainant did not pay difference of rate in respect of higher size flat allotted to him. Thereafter, the complainant made request on 8/3/1995 to allot him original allotted small flat. CIDCO agreed to his request and issued corrigendum on 25/1/1996. Corporation by letter dated 15/3/1996 had asked the complainant to contact Marketing Officer of CIDCO for taking possession of the flat. However, complainant did not take possession of the flat. The Corporation directed complainant to deposit Rs.79,847/- but same was not paid by the complainant. After sending registered notice on 24/3/1996 through Adv.Walekar, the complainant filed consumer complaint in the Forum below and sought certain reliefs against the CIDCO.
4) The appellant CIDCO contested the complaint by filing written statement. It pleaded that as per letter dated 30/10/1992, the complainant was allotted in Sector 1/E Kalamboli a flat of 33.21 Sq.Mt. but same was not available. Hence, he was given flat in Sector 2, Kalamboli of the same area by issuing corrigendum dated 10/11/1994. However, in place of Kalamboli flat, the complainant was offered and allotted a flat having larger carpet area i.e. 54.34 Sq.Mt. The said flat was worth Rs.2,87,884/-. However, it was found that this allotment was wrongly made. Hence, as per direction of Managing Director of the CIDCO, the complainant was given another flat KL-5/4/93, Sector-2 having area of 33.21 Sq.Mt. at Kalamboli dated 25/1/1996 and the complainant was immediately asked to take possession of the flat. But, the complainant did not take possession of the same by tendering original receipts. He was also asked to take back the amount he has deposited since he was not taking possession. But the complainant was not prepared even to take back the said amount by tendering original receipts. Hence, O.P. pleaded that CIDCO is not guilty of deficiency in service in any manner. It therefore prayed that complaint should be dismissed with cost.
5) Considering the affidavits and documents placed on record, the Forum below held that despite making payment of Rs.1,56,475/- the O.P./CIDCO had not given possession of the flat within prescribed time and therefore it was guilty of deficiency in service. It was also guilty of indifference and negligence of high order. The Forum below therefore allowed the complaint and directed CIDCO to refund amount of Rs.1,56,475/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. As such, CIDCO has filed this appeal.
6) We heard submissions of Mr.P.B.Kadam, Adv. for CIDCO and respondent was absent when appeal was called out for hearing.
7) We are finding that CIDCO had indulged in dilatory tactics. Respondent had paid a huge amount of Rs.1,56,475/- in the year 1994 and till he filed consumer complaint in the year 1996, he was not given possession of the flat. Flat allotted earlier was cancelled and another flat was offered to the complainant. It appears that respondent could not procure loan and as such he could not take possession of flat of larger size offered by the CIDCO. But, CIDCO ought to have given possession of original flat which complainant had booked and for which he had paid substantial amount. At one point of time CIDCO had offered a flat which was already allotted to some other person. So, at the intervention of Managing Director of CIDCO another flat was offered to the complainant. In the process, the complainant/respondent herein was subjected mental harassment and he was shifted from one place to another and he was required to run from pillar to post and when he found that he was not being given flat assured by CIDCO he approached Consumer Forum, Raigad-Alibag by filing consumer complaint.
8) The Forum below considering affidavits and documents placed on record, simply directed CIDCO to refund the amount complainant had paid with interest the rate of 12% per annum against which this appeal has been filed. Even after hearing Mr.P.B.Kadam, Adv. for the CIDCO, we are finding that order passed by the Forum below is ex facie proper. However, interest awarded is slightly on higher side. The Forum below did not take into account the contributory negligence on the part of allottee. Taking into account the reluctance on the part of respondent in approaching Marketing Officer with original receipts in taking possession of the flat or alternatively taking refund of amount, the Forum below appears to have awarded interest at a slightly higher rate and as such it would be in the fitness of things if we reduce the rate of interest from 12% to 9% because blame equally lies with the respondent in not taking possession of the flat or in not taking refund of the amount offered by the CIDCO. Hence, we are inclined to allow the appeal partly to reduce the rate of interest from 12% to 9%. Hence, the following order.
O R D E R 1) Appeal is partly allowed. 2) Appellant CIDCO is directed to refund the amount of Rs.1,56,475/- with
interest at the rate of 9% per annum in place of 12% per annum as ordered by the Forum below.
3) Rest of the order is confirmed. 4) Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. ( Smt.S.P.Lale ) (P.N.Kashalkar ) Member Presiding Judicial Member Malve/-