Delhi

StateCommission

A/811/2014

DIGVIJAY SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S ELDECO INFRASTRUCTURE & PROPERTIES LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

04 Sep 2014

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments:29.01.2020

Date of Decision : 05.02.2020

FIRST APPEAL NO.811/2014

In the matter of:

 

Digvijay Singh,

S/o. Lt. Col. Niranjan Singh (Retd),

At B-48, Defence Colony, Meerut City,

Through his Constitutional Attorney,

Lt. Col. Niranajan Singh (Retd),

R/o. B-48 Defence Colony,

Meerut City (UP).                                                                                  …..Appellant

 

Versus

 

M/s. Eldeco Infrastructure and Properties Ltd.,

201-2012, Splendor Forum,

2^nd Floor, Jasola District Centre,

New Delhi-110025.                                                                         ………Respondent

 

CORAM

Hon’ble Sh. O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                                               Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                        Yes/No

Shri O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

JUDGEMENT

1. This is unusual appeal filed by the complainant for enhancing the rate of interest from 9% p.a. as awarded by District Forum to 18% p.a., award Rs.1 lakh as mental agony and harassment, Rs.25,000/- for legal allied expenses.
2. Initially the appellant filed the complaint in this Commission for handing over possession of the flat and refunding Rs.13,17,833/- with interest @18% p.a. alongwith Rs.7 lakhs  as compensation. This commission transferred the complaint to District Forum vide order dated 24.05.06. The appellant booked unit no. IT, first floor having super area of 2530 sq. ft at the total cost of Rs.36,93,475/- in May, 2003. He paid Rs.1,84,674.75 as booking amount. He further paid Rs.34,71,885/-. OP-1 raised demand of Rs.3,46,151/- vide letter dated 18.01.04. It was beyond means of the complainant to pay said amount. So he requested vide letter dated 24.02.04 for exchange of flat to a smaller flat of the lesser value. OP agreed to do so subject to appellant’s relinquishing lien over the booked flat.
3. OP-2 was deleted by the District Forum vide order dated 25.03.09. Vide order dated 28.08.07 District Forum  gave interim directions to the OP-1 to hand over possession and return excess amount recovered alongwith interest @9% p.a. OP-1 tendered cheque for Rs.14,67,480/- but appellant insisted on interest @18% p.a. which was being charged by OP-1 for late payment from consumers. The appellant was given option to accept the amount without prejudice to his right.
4. The appellant was directed to furnish NOC from his bank. On non compliance by banker, appellant sought to implead the bank. The bank appeared in pursuance of order of District Forum and released the property mortgaged with it. Sublease has been executed between the parties and amount of Rs.14,67,482/- has been received by the appellant. The controversy remains about the amount of compensation. Appellant also insisted on payment of interest on Rs.1,98,135/- arbitrarily deducted as holding charges from 01.10.07 till date, interest on Rs.2,32,550/- which was the stamp duty and registration charges, penalty of amount equivalent to income tax payable by him @30% on the interest amount. He also sought penalty of Rs.1 lakh for audaciously illegal and malicious conduct of harassing him.
5. On the basis of material on record the District Forum returned a finding that it failed to find any deficiency in service on the part of OP-1. Delay occurred in handing over possession due to banker of the appellant alone. Non refund of Rs.13,17,833.75 which was the excess amount over the price of reduced flat was found to be unfair trade practice. Hence the impugned order was passed.
6. I have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments. The appellant relied upon decision of National Commission in CC no.347/14 titled as Swaran Talwar vs. Unitech Ltd. decided on 14.08.15 in which interest @18% p.a. was allowed.
7. On the other hand the counsel for respondent stated that grant of interest cannot be uniform in all cases. It has to depend upon facts to facts of each case as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority vs. Balbir Singh AIR 2004 SC 2141. In the instant case the complainant has got possession of the flat at the price prevailing at the time of booking. Thereby he has earned appreciation in value. Request for allotting a smaller flat was made by appellant due to his inability to pay the price of old bigger flat.
8. The counsel for respondent submitted that the latest trend of the NC has been to grant interest @6% p.a. In support of his submission he relied upon decision of NC in Shalab Nigam vs. Orissa Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. III (2019) CPJ 165. In CC no.2966/17 titled as Sumit Narang vs. Unitech Ltd. decided on 09.08.19 NC allowed interest @8% p.a.
9. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case I find no ground to interfere with the order of District Forum. Since the respondent sent a cheque of Rs.4,17,359/- being refund of Rs.2,58,394/- and interest of Rs.1,58,965/- which was refused by the appellant, I deem it fit not to allow any interest  after 31.07.14 which is the date of refusal by appellant. The appeal is dismissed.
10. Copies of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost. One copy of the order be sent to District Forum for information.
11. File be consigned to record room.

 

(O.P. GUPTA)                                                      MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

•