National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Ajay Kumar vs M/S. Bptp Ltd. & Anr. on 17 December, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI CONSUMER CASE NO. 1285 OF 2015 1. AJAY KUMAR B-57, SRI RAM APARTMENTS,
PLOT NO. 32, SECTOR-4, DWARKA, NEW DELHI-110075 ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. M/S. BPTP LTD. & ANR. M-11, MIDDLE CIRCLE, CONNAUGHT CIRCUS, NEW DELHI-110001 2. M/S. BPTP INTERNATIONAL TRADE CENTRE LTD. M-11, MIDDLE CIRCLE, CONNAUGHT CIRCUS, NEW DELHI-110 001 ...........Opp.Party(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE DR. S.M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER
For the Complainant : Mr. Vishal Saxena, Advocate with
Ms. Deepakshi Jain, Advocate For the Opp.Party :
Dated : 17 Dec 2015 ORDER
JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)
1.Counsel for the complainant is present. Arguments heard.
2. The amount paid by the complainant to the OPs/builders/promotors is Rs.60,00,000/- which is the specific amount. The interest is unspecific amount. He has cited an authority reported in Brij Pal Sharma Vs. Ghaziabad Development Authority, AIR 2005 SC 4282 wherein interest was granted in such like cases at the rate of 18% per annum. This is, too, early to consider this request. It is the discretion of the Court to grant interest upto 24% per annum or no interest at all. The facts of each case may differ with the other one. The interest is an unspecific amount which cannot be included at the initial stage. The case is tryable by State Commission. The State Commission may grant 18% interest or more. There lies no rub that the order passed by the State Commission ultimately goes beyond Rs.1,00,00,000/-. He has also cited an authority reported in Manjul Srivastava Vs. Govt. of U.P. & Ors., JT 2008 (9) SC 584. It is stated that the opposite party BPTP Ltd. has mentioned that they can charge interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the default committed by the allottees, but the opposite party did not state how much interest they will pay if there is a default on their part and has cited the above said authority. This is again too early to speak our piece on this matter. It cannot be said in which way the wind will blow. The problem must be investigated down to the ground. The defence has yet to be considered. We cannot say who is at fault.
3. The case is, therefore, dismissed as we have got no pecuniary jurisdiction. However, liberty is granted to the complainant to approach the State Commission as per law.
......................J J.M. MALIK PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DR. S.M. KANTIKAR MEMBER