Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/23/2022

Futuristic Software Solution Pvt.Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Praveen Dhanraj Jain - Opp.Party(s)

Ritin Jain

14 Feb 2023

ORDER

RAJASTHAN STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,JAIPUR FIRST APPEAL NO: 23/2022 Futuristic Software Solution Pvt.Ltd. Br. Office 618, Vaibhav Cine Multiplex, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur through its Director and authorized signatory Raghunath Agarwal. Vs. Praveen Ghanraj Jain s/o Sh. Dhanraj Jain r/o Flat No. 707, Akshat Nilay Appartment, Hawa Sarak, Jaipur 302006. Date of Order 14.2.2023 Before: Hon'ble Mr. Atul Kumar Chatterjee- Member(Judicial) Hon'ble Mrs. Shobha Singh- Member Present: Mr. Ritin Jain learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Anuj Mathur learned counsel for the respondent BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MR.ATUL KUMAR CHATTERJEE, MEMBER ( JUDICIAL): 2 This appeal has been filed by appellant/non-complainant against the judgment/ order of learned District Consumer Commission, Jaipur 2nd Jaipur dated 30.11.2021 passed in Complaint Case No 47/2017 whereby the learned DCC has ordered the appellant/ non-complainant to pay simple interest @ 9% p.a. on the amount deposited by the respondent/complainant till the date of refund. Besides this the learned DCC has ordered to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation in lieu of mental agony and Rs. 10,000/- as cost of litigation within one month and on failure to do so payment of simple interest @ 9% p.a. after one month. In this case it is more or less undisputed that the respondent/complainant had booked three plots bearing no. 115,116 and 117. The total area of which was 500 sq.yd. and rate was Rs. 7100/- per sq.yd. and total consideration amount payable was Rs. 35,50,000/-. The respondent/complainant had paid Rs. 21,25,000/- in two installments, first on 18.3.2014 amounting to Rs. 10,62,500/- and on 16.7.2014 again Rs.10,62,500/- total Rs. 21,50,000/- paid by the respondent/complainant to the appellant/non-complainant. It is 3 also admitted that appellant/non-complainant could not deliver possession of the above mentioned three plots due to non-conversion of the land u/s 90 (A) of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 because there was stay upon the concerned land by the Division Bench of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court vide order dated 28.8.2015. It is also admitted that for this reason the appellant/ non-complainant had returned the amount so deposited by the respondent/complainant in two installments through cheques on 21.8.2016 and 15.9.2016 respectively. The respondent/complainant has filed the complaint before the learned DCC alleging non-payment of interest on the amount so deposited despite demand. The learned DCC after considering the pleadings and evidence of the rival sides has arrived at a conclusion that since admittedly the appellant/ non-complainant had enjoyed the fruits of amount deposited by the respondent /complainant as such the appellant/ non-complainant was liable to pay interest from the date of receipt till date of payment and since the interest amount was not paid despite repeated demands by the respondent/ complainant as such holding the appellant/ 4 non-complainant guilty of committing deficiency in service, the learned DCC has passed the impugned order whereby interest @ 9% was allowed from the date of deposit till date of refund of the amount. Besides this as stated above Rs. 50,000/- was granted as compensation in lieu of mental agony and Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation. The learned counsel for the appellant/ non-complainant has more or less reiterated the contents of the memo of appeal as arguments and emphasizing on the point that admittedly it was not legally probable or possible for the appellant/non-complainant to deliver possession of the plots purchased by the respondent/ complainant due to there being stay by the Hon'ble High Court and consequent non-conversion by the JDA as such virtually there was no fault on the part of the appellant/ non-complainant. According to him since the respondent/ complainant has accepted the refund of the amount deposited by the complainant as such now the respondent/complainant is precluded or estopped from demanding interest on the amount deposited by him. Per contra the learned counsel for the 5 respondent/complainant has vehemently opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/non-complainant and has supported the impugned judgment dated 30.11.2021 as being factually and legally correct. According to him admittedly the appellant/non-complainant had enjoyed the fruits of the money deposited by the respondent/complainant as advance therefore, he is liable to pay interest on the amounts deposited. He has referred the judgments of Hon'ble National Commission in the matter of Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority Vs. Sham Lal Gumber & ors reported in IV (2016) CPJ 102 (NC) and Vivek Kishorchandra Mehta & anr. Vs. Purnik Builders Pvt. Ltd. Reported in IV (2018) CPJ 412 (NC) and judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Alok Shanker Pandey Vs. Union of India & ors. reported in II (2007)CPJ 3 (SC). We have pondered upon the rival contentions and have gone through the impugned judgment meticulously. Factually it is more or less undisputed that the respondent/complainant has deposited total amount of 6 Rs.21,25,000/- in two installments. The total consideration amount payable was Rs. 35,50,000/- but because of the fact that the appellant/non-complainant was not in a position to handover the possession of the plots purchased because of operation of the stay upon the land by Hon'ble High Court and consequently for that reason non-conversion of land by the JDA therefore, the amount so deposited viz Rs. 21,25,000/- was refunded to the respondent/complainant in two installments. It is also admitted that no interest, whatsoever was paid by the appellant/non-complainant to the respondent/ complainant. The appellant/non-complainant has emphasized that the respondent/complainant had willingly accepted the refund without any objection at that time as such he cannot claim interest by way of complaint and alleging deficiency in service. It has also been emphasized by the appellant/ non-complainant that from the date of refund by the appellant/non-complainant and receipt by the respondent/complainant, the privity of contract has vanished and for this reason also the complainant could not demand interest subsequently. The learned DCC has pondered upon this point in para 13 of the impugned judgment and has rightly arrived at a 7 conclusion that there is no documentary evidence that the respondent/complainant had received the amount as full and final payment of the advance paid by him to appellant/non-complainant. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Alok Shanker Pandey Vs. Union of India (supra) has held that interest is not penalty or punishment but normal accretion on capital. On the basis of this principle also in the case in hand, we find that admittedly the appellant/ non-complainant had enjoyed the fruits of the amount of Rs. 21,25,000/- deposited by the respondent/complainant as advance towards the consideration amount and definitely during the period of holding this amount the appellant/non-complainant must have availed benefit of interest or could have availed the benefit of interest as such the respondent/complainant was entitled to get interest on the amount so deposited as an accretion to the deposited amount. So far as contention of the appellant/non-complainant that the appellant/non-complainant did not commit any wrong in not being able to deliver possession due to legal 8 ambitments, in our humble view admittedly at the initial stage when the respondent/ complainant had paid the advance towards consideration of land even at that point of time the appellant/non-complainant was not in a position to deliver possession of the land because on that date the plots were not converted from agricultural to residential land and the matter for use of land conversion u/s 90 (A) of Land Revenue Act was pending. In this way accepting the advance towards consideration for the land which initially could not be handed over by the appellant/non-complainant to respondent/complainant definitely amounts to causing deficiency in service as well as committing unfair trade practice therefore, in our humble view only refund of the deposited amount in itself cannot be deemed to be sufficient to absolve the appellant/non-complainant from paying interest on the amount deposited by the respondent/complainant. Based on the above discussions we arrived at a conclusion that the learned DCC, Jaipur 2nd Jaipur has not committed any illegality in granting interest on the deposited amount from the date of deposit till the date of refund and also the amount of compensation in lieu of mental agony and cost 9 of litigation. Therefore, we find that the appeal filed by the appellant/non-complainant deserves to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. (Shobha Singh) (A.K.Chatterjee) Member Member Judicial nm