BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 29^TH DAY OF MARCH 2022

ORDER

SRI.K.S.BILAGI, PRESIDENT

1. The complaint has been filed under Section 34 of C.P.Act, 2019 (herein under referred as an Act) for the following reliefs against the OP:-

(a) Direct the OP to pay Rs.1,45,000/- interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from 23.01.2015 to till repayment along with damages of Rs.50,000/- for holding the amount for five years.

(b) To pay sum of Rs.20,000/- towards the physical strain and mental agony.

(c) To pay sum of Rs.5,000/- towards cost of complaint.     

2. The case set up by the complainant in brief is as under:-

The complainant having an interest to purchase site No.71 paid Rs.1,45,000/- to the OP against the total sale consideration of Rs.1,75,000/- in the year 2014 and 2015. The complainant has paid this amount on different dates under different receipts.

3. Even though OP has agreed to complete the sale transaction within one year from the date of MOU.  But, OP failed to complete the sale transaction.  This act of the OP amounts to deficiency of serviced.  The OP failed to refund Rs.1,45,000/-.  The complainant was put under mental tension due to the inaction of the OP.  Therefore, complainant claims interest at 18% p.a. and compensation of Rs.50,000/- for non-fulfilling the terms of the transaction. 

4. After receipt of notice, the OP appears and files version.  This complaint has been filed to harass the OP and to extract money. The total consideration of site bearing No.71 was Rs.1,75,000/-.  The complainant has paid part of the consideration amount. After receipt of legal notice dated 24.11.2020, the OP was interested to allot and registered the sale in favour of the complainant.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of OP.  OP requests to dismiss the complaint.  

5. The complainant files his affidavit evidence and relies on certain documents.  The affidavit evidence of authorized officer of OP has been filed.  Heard the arguments and perused the written argument.

6. The following points arise for our consideration:-

1. Whether the complainant proves the deficiency of service on the part of OP?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to reliefs mentioned in the complaint?
3. What order?

7. Our answers to the above points are as under:

       Point Nos.1 and 2:-  Partly in the affirmative.

      Point No.3:-per final orders

REASONS

8. Point Nos.1 and 2: Even though allegations made in the complaint are denied by the OP in part.  But, it is proved from the evidence and documents dated 13.08.2018 and 11.09.2019 that there was a memorandum of understanding between the complainant and OP in respect of site No.71.  The payment of Rs.1,45,000/- against agreed value of Rs.1,75,000/- has been proved from the payment receipts and acknowledgement produced under Ex.A.2 to Ex.A.8.  The complainant has paid Rs.1,45,000/- against agree3d value of Rs.1,75,000/- for the year 2014 and 2015.  The complainant made requests to refund his money by letter as per Ex.A.10 and legal notice dated 24.11.2020 as per Ex.A.12.
9. It is one of the contention of the OP that the OP was ready to provide alternative site to the complainant for registration towards executed memorandum of understanding.  But, OP has not produced any evidence to show that which alternative site was available for due execution of registered sale deed.  It is also relevant to note that the OP never called upon the complainant to pay the balance amount and get the sale deed registered.  Therefore, contention of OP that  site was available for execution of registered sale deed is not proved.
10. OP also contends that due to out break of virus Covid-19, the OP is unable to got site in favour of the complainant.  But, this say has contrary to the contention raised by the complainant in para 14 of the version.  When the OP has taken two plea that is he was ready to provide alternative site and secondly due to out-break of Covid-19 he was unable to got site registered.  It is true that OP is at liberty to take different plea.  But, such contrary plea clearly demonstrates that the OP never interested either to refund the amount or to execute the registered sale deed.  Under such circumstances, we can specifically say that the OP has committed deficiency of service either by non-refunding the money or not executing the sale deed in favour of complainant by calling the complainant to pay balance amount.  The complainant proves deficiency of service on the part of OP.
11. The complainant has paid the amount as could be seen from the receipts Rs.5,000/- on 25.09.2014, Rs.45,000/- on 10.10.2014, Rs.50,000/- on 20.11.2014 and Rs.45,000/- on 23.01.2015.  This amount remains with the OP.  Therefore, OP is liable to compensate the complainant.
12. The complainant claims interest at 18% p.a. from 23.01.2015 to till repayment and damages of Rs.50,000/-.  The claim of interest at 18% p.a. itself is in the form of compensation and this rate is exorbitant.  At any point of time, such 18% interest never prevailing either in the bank or in the open market.  Recently Hon’ble National Commission and Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in series of decisions were please to award interest in the form of compensation at the rate of 9% p.a. from the3 date of payment till realization.  The complainant claims interest from 23.01.2015 till realization. Therefore, it is proper to award compensation in the form of 9% p.a. interest on Rs.1,45,000/- from 23.01.2015 till realization.  The complainant has availed the service of an advocate.  But, there was no court fee liability by the complainant. Therefore, it is proper to award Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation.      
13. Point No.3:- In view of the discussion referred above, the complaint requires to be allowed in part.  OP is liable to refund Rs.1,45,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from 23.01.2015 till realization with Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation. It is proper to grant specified time for compliance of this order or otherwise the OP will enjoy the money of the complainant.    Hence, we proceed to pass the following

  O R D E R

1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. The OP shall refund Rs.1,45,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from 23.01.2015 till realization and pay Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant.
3. The OP shall comply this order within 60 days from this date.
4. Furnish the copy of order to both parties as per law.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 29^th day of March, 2022)

Documents produced by the Complainant which are as follows:-