Haryana

StateCommission

A/271/2016

KUSUM LATA - Complainant(s)

Versus

PARSHVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

MUNISH GUPTA

04 May 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

                                                First Appeal No.           271 of 2016

                                                Date of Institution:       31.03.2016

                                                Date of Decision:         04.05.2016

 

Kusum Lata wife of Jaipal Singh, resident of Village Bakhtawarpur, District Sonepat at present resident of Gali No.8, Near Suraj Petrol Pump, Vikas Nagar, Murthal Road, Sonepat.

                             Appellant-Complainant

Versus

1.      Parsvnath Developers Limited, Registered & Corporate Office at 6^th Floor, Arunachal Building, 19 Barakhamba Road, New Delhi -01 through its Director.

 

2.      The Branch Manager, Parsvnath Developers Limited, G.T. Road, Sonepat.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.                                                                                 

Present:              Mr. Bhupender Singh, Advocate for the appellant.

           

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

This complainant’s appeal is directed against the order dated February 26^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat (for short, ‘District Forum’).  Operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

“        Thus, taking into consideration the above said law of the Hon’ble National Commission, we are of the view that since there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondents, thus, they are liable to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum to the complainant.  Thus, we hereby direct the respondents to refund the entire deposited amount to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of its deposit till its realization.  The respondents are further directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.75000/- for rendering deficient services, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.”  

2.      Anil Kumar booked a plot measuring 400 sq. yards in the year 2005 with Parsvnath Developers Limited-opposite party.  He deposited Rs.5,75,000/- with the opposite party. Thereafter, the complainant got the booking transferred in her name.  She paid Rs.11,50,000/- to the opposite party.  The opposite party did not allot any plot to the complainant. Hence, she filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum. 

3.      The complaint was accepted by the District Forum and issued direction to the opposite party as mentioned in paragraph No.1 of this order.

4.      The complainant has come up in appeal on the short ground that interest awarded on the deposited amount should have been 24% per annum instead of 18% per annum.

5.      The District Forum has not only awarded interest at the rate of 18% per annum but also awarded Rs.75,000/- as compensation to the complainant.  This being so, the complainant has been adequately compensated and as such, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out to increase the rate of interest to 24%.

6.      The appeal is therefore dismissed.

 

Announced 04.05.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

UK