1.       This appeal under Section 51(1) of The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 has been filed in challenge to the Order dated 17.08.2021 of the State Commission in complaint no. 400 of 2016.

2.       Heard the learned counsel for the appellant (the ‘complainant’) and the learned counsel for the respondents (the ‘builder co.’). Perused the record.

3.       The matter pertains to a builder-buyer dispute. Briefly, the complainant paid a total amount of Rs. 23,68,664/- to the builder co. in the period between 02.05.2006 to 14.09.2010. The builder–buyer agreement was executed on 29.06.2007. The committed period of making delivery of possession of the subject residential unit was within 36 months of execution of the agreement i.e. till 28.06.2010. However there was abnormal unreasonable delay in completing the project and making delivery of possession. The builder co. then refunded the deposited amount of Rs. 23,68,664/- vide cheques (05 nos.) and got a receipt therefor on 24.06.2014. No compensation in any form was paid. All the cheques got dishonoured. Consequently the complainant filed a complaint under section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. On 11.02.2015 the builder co. paid the deposited amount of Rs. 23,68,664/- to the complainant along with Rs. 50,000/- towards litigation expenses of the complaint, and the complainant therefore did not press his said complaint further under the Negotiable Instruments Act. However his cause for compensation by way of interest on the deposited amount survived under the Act 1986. He filed a complaint before the State Commission under the Act 1986 seeking compensation by way of interest on the deposited amount for the period it had been retained by the builder co. The State Commission dismissed his complaint holding that he had “amicably settled” all his claims and had received back the amount paid by him “alongwith compensation” in full and final settlement of his claim in the year 2014. For arriving at its findings it relied principally on the articulation of the receipt dated 24.06.2014. It ignored the averments of the complainant that he took the principal amount without any compensation under pure duress and he signed the receipt since without this the builder co. was not refunding even his deposited amount. The State Commission also overlooked the fact that admittedly no compensation at all either by way of interest on the deposited amount or in any other form was ever paid to the complainant and only his principal amount was belatedly returned. In fact the State Commission made an error on facts by recording that he received the amount paid by him “alongwith compensation” when actually no compensation at all had been paid. No settlement deed of any nature was on record. The only ‘settlement’ purported to have been arrived at was in the form of two sentences ingeniously made part of the articulation of the receipt, and which was in any case nothing better than a poor semblance of a regular ‘settlement’ which could be called bonafide. The receipt was a printed one, printed by the builder co. itself. It is illogical and irrational to assume that a person whose money has been unjustly and inequitably retained by the builder co. will not seek any compensation whatsoever but will be willingly content with the belatedly refunded deposited amount alone. Here the complainant categorically averred that he had no other alternative but to sign on the printed receipt which he was made to do by the builder co. since otherwise the builder co. was not refunding even his principal amount. As such we do not agree with the State Commission and are of the considered opinion that the State Commission has erred in its appreciation of the facts and evidence. We may elaborate further.

4.       At this stage learned counsel for the builder co. requests for an interlude to seek instructions.

5.       After an interlude, learned counsel for the builder co. submits, on instructions, that the builder co. has already refunded the amount of Rs. 23,68,664/- deposited by the complainant on 11.02.2015 and is willing to pay compensation by way of interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the said amount of Rs. 23,68,664/- from the respective dates of deposit till realization. He also submits, on instructions, that the payment will be made within six weeks from today without fail. Learned counsel also requests that the decision in this case may not be treated as a precedent.

6.       Learned counsel for the complainant submits, on instructions, that the afore terms are acceptable to the complainants.

7.       In the wake of the above submissions the appeal is disposed of with the direction that compensation by way of interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the deposited amount of Rs. 23,68,664/- from the respective dates of deposit till realisation shall be paid by the builder co. to the complainant within six weeks from today, failing which the State Commission shall undertake execution, for ‘enforcement’ and for ‘penalty’, as per the law.  

8.       This Order has been made on consent. As such the decision in this case shall not be treated as a precedent. The issues involved are kept open.

It is also made explicit that the State Commission’s impugned Order dated 17.08.2021 stands set aside.

9.      The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the appeal and to their learned counsel as well as to the State Commission immediately. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.       

‘Dasti’, in addition, to facilitate timely compliance.