Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6.      Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant is a senior citizen and she had been duped with her money which she would have invested at some other places and she could have got good returns and therefore the State Commission has rightly granted the compensation towards mental agony and difference of amount of the flat as per market rate. 

7.      The only issue for consideration before us is whether the State Commission has committed illegality by granting difference of the market rate of the flat or not.  To put it differently, the issue is whether while ordering the refund along with interest, the value of the flat could have been calculated on the market rate prevalent in the year when the complaint was filed.  The same issue had come up before this Commission.  This Commission in its two judgments in the case of M/s Siraj Developers & Anr. Vs. Yasmin Razak Vanoo (supra) and M/s Lakadwala Developers (P) Ltd. & Ors Vs. Amarjeet Singh Baryam Singh (Supra has clearly held that the compensation payable to the complainant should not be calculated on the basis of the current ready reckoner price of the flat.  In the case of M/s Siraj Developers & Anr. Vs. Yasmin Razak Vanoo (supra), this Commission has held as under:

11.  The undisputed facts are that the respondent/complainant had booked a residential unit with the opposite party/appellant, but the possession has not been provided to the complainant. The State Commission has ordered the possession of the unit booked or any other similar unit in the same area or in the alternative refund an amount of Rs.71,85,815/- which is based on the ready reckoner of the Government of the State. As the appellant has stated that he is not in a position to provide the flat, so he will have to refund the amount, however, he has objected to the amount ordered by the State Commission. In this regard both the parties have given their arguments and drawn attention towards certain judgments. The only question to be decided is whether the refund on the basis of ready reckoner is justified or it should be on the basis of some interest being payable on the deposited amount. The learned counsel for the respondent has referred to the judgment of this Commission in Trivor D' Lama (supra) wherein refund has been ordered on the basis of present market price in the peculiar circumstances of the case. The learned counsel has also referred to another judgment in Kevit Ahuja (supra) wherein refund has been ordered with 18% p.a. interest on the deposited amount.

12.       In most of the cases of refund, this Commission is awarding interest on the deposited amount. In my view, if flat is not built, there should be no question of offering the market price or on the basis of ready reckoner as the money deposited has not grown to the market value of the flat. Earlier in some cases, in respect of pecuniary jurisdiction, sometimes, the present market value was taken to be the value of goods and services, but a larger Bench of this Commission in Consumer Case No.97 of 2016, Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., decided on 07.10.2016 (NC), has decided that the value of goods and services for deciding the pecuniary jurisdiction shall be the total consideration paid or promised to be paid at the time of purchase. Thus, the concept of market value for determining value of goods and services for deciding pecuniary jurisdiction has not been accepted by this Commission. In analogy, it seems reasonable to say that the concept of market value cannot be sustained in the cases for refund.

8.      In the case of M/s Lakadwala Developers (P) Ltd. & Ors Vs. Amarjeet Singh Baryam Singh (Supra), this Commission has held as under:

10. The State Commission directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.99,79,200/- to the complainant along with 9% interest, holding that the above referred figure reflected the market price of the flat as per the newspaper reports which were referred before it. However, the newspaper report in my opinion does not constitute legally admissible evidence to prove the market value of a flat. No sale deed was filed by the complainant before the State Commission to prove the prevailing market value of the similar flats in the locality in which the allotted flat is situated. Even the Ready Reckoner was not produced before the State Commission to prove the ready reckoner price of the flat on the date the consumer complaint came to be decided or even on the date on which the consumer complaint had been instituted. In my opinion, considering that the complainant did not produce any sale deed or other authentic document to prove the prevailing market price of a similarly situated flat of similar specifications in the same or a comparable locality, the appellant should pay, to the complainant, as compensation the difference between the current market value of the flat, calculated as per the Ready Reckoner price of today and the price which he had agreed to pay to the appellant for the flat booked by it. The Ready Reckoner reflects the minimum market price of a flat / plot on a particular date and is a document issued by the concerned Government / Municipal Authority. Therefore, I see no reason why the compensation payable to the complainant should not be calculated on the basis of the current ready reckoner price of the flat.