State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Megacity (Bangalore) Developers And ... vs K.Kasirajan on 16 October, 2024
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BASAVA BHAVAN, BANGALORE. First Appeal No. A/233/2017 ( Date of Filing : 24 Jan 2017 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 25/11/2016 in Case No. CC/828/2014 of District Bangalore 3rd Additional) 1. Megacity (Bangalore) Developers and Builders Ltd., Megacity (Bangalore) Developers and Builders Ltd., ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. K.Kasirajan S/o late Kannan aged about 68 years, Ex BEML Employee, R/at K.J.Clinic, B.M. Road, Robertsonpet, Kolar Gold Fields-563122. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. Ravishankar PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 16 Oct 2024 Final Order / Judgement 16.10.2024 BY SRI.RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER O R D E R
The Appellant/Opposite Party No.1 has preferred this appeal against the order dated 25.11.2016 passed in CC.No.828/2014 by 3rd Additional District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Bengaluru.
2. Heard - Perused the certified copy of the order and memorandum of appeal, the District Commission has directed this appellant to refund an amount of Rs.10,000/- with interest @18% from 13.06.2002 till realization and also directed to pay Rs.25,000/- as a compensation along with Rs.2,000/- towards cost to the complainant against which the appellant before this Commission and submits that the interest charged on the said amount is not in accordance with law. The complainant had only paid Rs.10,288/- whereas the sale consideration amount was Rs.66,000/- plus Developmental charges of Rs.11,712/-. There is a default in payment of balance consideration amount and when there is a default on the side of respondent in paying the instalments, this appellant is not liable to pay any interest on the refundable amount hence, prays to set aside the order passed by the District Commission and dismiss the complaint in the interest of justice and equity.
3. We noticed that the respondent had not urged the valid reasons why he had not paid the remaining balance towards the Sale consideration amount. Admittedly, he had paid an amount of Rs.10,288/- towards allotment of site and subsequently he sought for refund of the said amount. When the amount voluntarily sought for refund, the question of payment of interest does not arises. The District Commission has not provided a valid reasons to impose 18% interest on the refundable amount hence, the order passed by the District Commission is requires to be modified as here under:-
O R D E R The appeal is disposed off with modification.
The appellant is directed to refund an amount of Rs.10,288/- to the complainant SB rate of interest @6% from the date of order till realization.
Further, the appellant is directed to pay Rs.2,000/- towards litigation expenses and when there is no any deficiency in service, the award towards compensation is not necessary. As such the compensation amount was waved off.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned District Consumer Commission to do needful.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as concerned District Consumer Commission.
(Sunita .C. Bagewadi) (Ravishankar) Member Judicial Member vs* [HON'BLE MR. Ravishankar] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi] MEMBER