Delhi

StateCommission

A/310/2017

VINOD KALIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

PARSVNATH DEVLOPERS LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

RAJIV SHARMA

18 Jul 2017

ORDER

IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL, COMMISSION : DELHI

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

Date of Arguments : 18.07.2017

Date of Decision : 20.07.2017

Appeal No.310/2017

 

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

Prof. Vinod Kalia,

D-157 Saket,

New Delhi-110017.                                                                                ……Appellant

                                               

Versus

1. M/s. Parsvnath Developers Ltd.,

6^th Floor, Arunchal Building,

19 Barakhamba Road,

New Delhi.110001.                                                             ….Respondent  No.1

           

2. Shri Pardeep Jain,

Chairman/ Managing Director,

M/s. Parsavnath Developers Ltd.,

6^th Floor, Arunchal Building,

19 Barakhamba Road,

New Delhi.11000.                                                                ….Respondent no.2

CORAM

HON’BLE SH. O.P.GUPTA, MEMBER(JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE SH. ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER

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

Present: Shri  Rajiv Sharma, counsel for appellant.

 

PER  : SHRI ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER

          Aggrieved by the orders dated  12.01.17 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum – VI (New Delhi) in CC No.1030 of 2011 in the matter of Prof. Vinod Kalia V/s. M/s. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. and others  directing the OP to refund the amount paid by the complainant namely Rs.13,21,687/- with simple interest @10% from the date of deposit till the realization of the amount as also the compensation to the extent of Rs.1,30,000/- for the mental harassment, loss and litigation charges, Prof. Vinod Kalia being not satisfied with the relief granted, has filed an appeal before this Commission under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for direction to the respondents, as under:-

1. The judgment dated 12.01.17 passed in   case no.CC-1030 of 2011 by the District Forum-VI, New Delhi District in the above mentioned case be modified and enhance the compensation from Rs.1,30,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/- and rate of interest from 10% to 18% and direct the respondents to pay within 30 days failing which the rate of interest be increased to 24% till respondents made the payment.
2. Pass such other or further order deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

          Facts of the case are these.

          Prof. Vinod Kalia hereinafter referred to as an  appellant had applied for a flat in the residential scheme of the OP in their project namely Prasvnath Privilege at Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, Delhi and paid an amount of Rs.13,21,685.50, 25% of the cost of the flat, as Rs.10,00,000/-  on 01.05.16 and Rs.3,21,687.50 on 18.05.09.  The appellant was required to pay the balance amount as per the construction schedule. The allegation of the appellant is that since the construction never started no further payment beyond 25% was paid.  The physical possession of the flat was to be handed over within 3 years i.e. by 2010. On inspection it was noticed  by the appellant that even commencement of the construction has not been done. The appellant thereafter waited  till 2011 and finding nothing in the project no progress as was contemplated, he has sought  for the amount paid by him along with the interest @24%. The OP had since failed to deposit the refund the amount a complaint was filed before District For a, bearing number  CC-1030/2011.

          The District For a on a careful consideration of the pleadings evidence and other material placed before them,  passed an order refunding amount so deposited  with simple  interest @10%. An amount of Rs.1,30,000/- was also awarded as compensation for the mental agony, loss and damages.

          The appellant not being satisfied with the relief granted has preferred this appeal praying for the interest @24% on the ground that the OP has committed deficiency in service, retained illegally his money and made profit out of it. The appellant has also stated that there are plenty of judgement, of the Hon’ble Apex Court and if NCDRC awarding higher rate of interest and compensation. The appellant have also stated that the order passed by the Ld. District Fora is bad in law and against the well settled principle laid down in various pronouncement done from time to time. The appellant has further claimed that he is entitlted for higher rate of interest, more so when the District Fora has also reached to a conclusion that there has been deficiency of service on the part of the OP., The appellant have also taken the ground that the District Fora failed to apply judicious discretion in his matter leading to filing of this appeal. We have examined the documents, papers and we have heard the arguments on behalf of the appellant. We find no infirmity in the order passed by the District Fora as the amount has been ordered to be refunded with simple interest @10% with suitable & reasonable compensation. In our view the relief granted meets the ends of justice in its totality. There can no codified law on the subject of award of  interest.

 

 

          Para 10 of the judgment in case of Subhash Chander Mahajan Vs. Parsvanath Developers Ltd., CC No.144 of 2011, decided on 05.05.2014  is relevant for the purpose and is reproduce/ed below:

          “We find force in the arguments raised by the counsel for the OP, in a measure. The complainants cannot claim interest @24% p.a. They are bound by the agreement entered into between the complainants and the OP. It is to be assumed that the parties had signed the agreement with open eyes and after understanding its each and every covenant. However, we are aware of a case where the Apex Court had GRANTED interest @18% p.a., wherein the money in respect of the flat was returned. This was so held by the Apex Court in the case of K.A. Nagamani Vs. Karnataka Housing Board, Civil Appeal Nos.6730-31 of 2012, decided on 19.09.2012.

          Both the interest and compensation have been awarded by the District Fora. In fact compensation is also one way of interest or interest is one way of compensation as per decision of this Commission in the matter of DDA Vs Rajan Bhatia CFA 287/06 decided on 03.05.06. In the given case the District Fora observing, deficiency on the part of the OP have awarded the appellant interest as also compensation.

Both could not be granted. If compensation is added to interest, the gross interest would exceed 12%.  The relief granted, in our view, appears to us just and proper, relying on the facts of the case and foresaid judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court.

          Having regard to the fact and circumstances we find no infirmity in the orders passed by the District Fora and we uphold the same.

           We order accordingly.

Copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost as contemplated under the Consumer Protection Rules 1987 read with Consumer Protection Regulations 2005.

          File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)                                                  (O.P.GUPTA)

MEMBER                                                                     MEMBER (JUDICIAL)