Per Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member
Both these appeals are cross appeals arise out of one and the same order dated 19/04/2010 passed in consumer complaint no.703/2007, Mr.S.N.Nemane (Lt.Col.Retd.) and another v/s.Mr.Lalit Gandhi, Chairman & Managing Director, Lok Housing and Construction Ltd. passed by Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Bandra (‘forum’ in short). Undisputed facts are that original complainants i.e.Nemane agreed to purchase a flat bearing no.704 in building no.A-9 in a project ‘Lok Uphaar’ situated at Virar (West) and constructed by the original opponent and his group Lok Housing and Construction company (herein after referred as ‘builder’). Price of the said flat was agreed at `4,95,300/- and on receipt of initial payment of `46,500/- on 19/10/1995, builder issued a letter of allotment in favour of the complainants. Part payments were made thereafter from time to time and in all total consideration of `1,90,400/- was received as part consideration till the registered agreement was executed on 14/07/1997. Complainants had to spend `16,335/- for registration of the agreement. However, the builder abandoned the project and by its communication dated 17/07/1999 given option to the complainants either to accept another flat in different project or receive part consideration along with interest. Complainants opted for refund of consideration with interest. However, builder failed to refund the entire consideration with interest as agreed. Builder disputed that interest offered @ 24% p.a. was payable only for one year. Therefore consumer complaint was filed.
Forum accepted the contention of the complainants and partly allowed the complaint and directed the builder to pay `6,57,524/- by way of compensation along with interest. If the said amount was not paid within a period of 6 weeks and further awarded cost of `5000/-. Not satisfied with the same complainant preferred A/10/778 while builder preferred appeal bearing no.A/10/558.
Heard Mr.R.D’Souza-Advocate for the appellant in A/10/558 and for respondent in A/10/778 and Mr.S.N.Nemane-Respondent in person in A/10/558 and appellant in person in A/10/778. Perused the record.
After abandonment of the project the builder offered to the complainant a flat in another scheme or to get refund of consideration paid along with interest. Interest offered as per letter dated 30/12/1999 is @ 21% payable for one year. Obviously, entire amount was perhaps estimated to be refunded within a period of one year. But such payment was not actually made and the payment made thereafter or in the course of time was also not a lump sum payment made but made intermittently and piecewise. Therefore, clearly there is deficiency in service on the part of the builder and, therefore, consumer complaint was rightly filed.
Even accepting contention of the builder for interest payable @ 21% for one year, the forum had taken into consideration the calculation made after adjusting the payments made by the builder by ‘cutmity’ system or the word used by the forum ‘reduced balance method’. The forum actually granted the relief even as per the case pleaded by the builder. We find no fault in the said calculation and the reasoning given by the forum while accepting the case of the complainant to the extent of `6,57,524/- and ordering compensation accordingly. Thus, we find no merit in the appeal preferred by the builder as well as for the enhancement by the complainant. Holding accordingly, we pass following order:-
ORDER
Both the Appeal nos.A/10/558 & A/10/778 stands dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced on 04th July, 2011.
