Reserved
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
U.P. Lucknow.
Appeal No.449 of 1998
1- Ansal Housing & Construction Limited,
2112, Barakhamba Road, 15, U.G.F.,
New Delhi through its Director.
2- Ansal Housing & Construction Limited,
20, ‘Kalyani’ Civil Lines, Meerut through
its Branch Manager. …Appellants.
Dr. Madhurani Agarwal and Ratan Prakash Agarwal,
R/o Indira Gandhi Working Womens Hostel,
Shivaji Road, Meerut. .…Respondent.
Present:-
1- Hon’ble Sri Rajendra Singh, Presiding Member.
2- Hon’ble Sri Sushil Kumar, Member.
Sri V.S. Bisaria, Advocate for the appellants.
None for the respondent.
Date 9.3.2022
JUDGMENT
Per Mr. Rajendra Singh, Member: This Appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgement and order dated 03.01.1998 passed by Learned District Forum, Meerut in Complaint Case no.182 of 1996, Dr. Madhu Rani Agrawal Vs. Ansl Housing & Construction Ltd. & Anr.
The brief facts of the appeal are that, that the respondent filed a complaint case before the Learned Forum, Meerut stating that she booked a flat A-126 on the second floor in Suryadaya Vihar Scheme, Shashtri Nagar, Meerut costing Rs.2,31,345.50/– by depositing the booking amount of Rs.11,570/– on 22 December 1990. It was alleged that the respondent will pay the rest amount in instalments and for which she deposited Rs.11,570/– on 4 March 1991. She again received a letter from the appellants asking for making
(2)
payment of a further sum of Rs.34,701.25 but she did not deposit the said amount on the ground that the construction has not been started and the land is lying vacant.
In spite of several letters she did not deposit any further amount. She filed a complaint case in which the appellant filed their written statement and other documents in support thereof. The complainant has defaulted in making payment and she has not come with clean hands therefore she was not entitled to any relief. But the learned Forum relying upon the allegations made by the complainant passed the judgment in her favour and directed the appellants to refund the deposited amount with 15% interest from the date of the possession and further a sum of Rs.1000/– as cost of the case. The impugned judgment is against the facts of law and is without appreciating the appellant’s written statement and affidavit. The impugned judgment has been passed without considering the submission and is against the provisions of law and hence liable to be set aside. Therefore it is most respectfully prayed that the Hon’ble commission may graciously be pleased to set aside the impugned judgment and allow the present appeal.
We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant Sri V.S. Bisaria. None appeared for the respondent. We have perused the pleadings, evidence and documents available on record.
We have seen the impugned judgment of the Learned District Forum. It has been rightly held that complainant was bound to deposit the instalments as per the scheme but the opposite parties were also liable to start construction according to the plan. The learned Forum directed the
(3)
opposite party to refund the amount deposited by respondent with interest at a rate of 15% from the date of deposit and also awarded Rs.1000/– as cost of the suit. We did not find any irregularity in this judgment except the rate of interest which is on higher side. The rate of interest should be 10%. The rest part of judgment needs no interference by this court. So the appeal is liable to be allowed partially.
ORDER
The appeal is allowed partially. The rate of interest in the impugned judgment/order is reduced from 15% to 10% and rest part of judgment is hereby confirmed. Cost on parties.
The stenographer is requested to upload this order on the Website of this Commission today itself.
Certified copy of this judgment be provided to the parties as per rules.
(Sushil Kumar) (Rajendra Singh)
Member Presiding Member
Judgment dated/typed signed by us and pronounced in the open court.
Consign to record.
(Sushil Kumar) (Rajendra Singh)
Member Presiding Member
Jafri, PA II
Court 2
