Haryana

StateCommission

A/355/2015

SAHARA INDIA COMMERCIAL CORP.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SAHIL SHARMA - Opp.Party(s)

SURJEET BAHDU

04 Jan 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

 

 

First Appeal No.355  of 2015

Date of the Institution:31.03.2015

Date of Decision:04.01.2017

 

1.      Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd., Sahara India Centre, 2, Kapurthala Complex, Aligang Lucknow-226024.

 2.     Sahara City Homes, Pune Survey No.10, Porwal Road, Vishrantwadi Lohegaon Road, Dhanori, Pune-411015. Through its Principal Officer/Authorized Signatory.

3.      Sahara India, Branch Office 2^nd Floor Neelkanth Complex, Camp  Chowk, Hisar through its Branch Manager/Principal Officer.

                                                                             .….Appellants

Versus

Sahil Sharma aged 32 years, H.No.129, Vijay
colony, Gali No.8, Jawahar Nagar, Hisar (Haryana).

                                                                                                .….Respondent

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Shubham Bhardwaj, Advocate counsel for the appellants.

                    Mr.Tarun Gupta, Advocate counsel for respondent.

 

O R D E R

URVASHI AGNIHOTRI, MEMBER:

1. Sahara India Commercial Corporation Limited -OP is in appeal against the Order dated 05.02.2015 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar (for short ‘District Forum’), whereby the complaint of Sahil Sharma has been allowed by directing the OP, -

to pay interest @15% per annum, from the date of deposit of Rs.1,20,550/- i.e. from 31.07.2007 till payment. However, the amount of Rs.1,73,634/- already paid vide cheque dated 03.06.2013 shall be duly adjusted. The complainant is also awarded compensation of Rs.20,000/- for his harassment, mental agony etc. and litigation expenses of Rs.1100/-.

2. Briefly stated, undisputedly, opposite parties invited applications from public at large, for allotment of flats in their scheme known as “Sahara City Homes” Pune.  In response thereto, complainant Sahil Sharma, on 31.7.2007 deposited Rs.1,20,550/-, vide receipt of the same day dated 31.7.2007, for allotment of two bad rooms flats against total sale consideration of Rs.44,11,000/-.  The project was to be completed  within two years, but the opposite parties failed to do so and later on  sent letter dated 8.10.2012 to the complainant and to other similarly situated  persons informing, that necessary approvals from concerned authorities were not received and so they were going to start another project. OPs notified to all the persons interested in the new scheme, that seeking the option of the customers, that in case they were interested in the flats then they should send their fresh consent for different types of flats on different rates as per schedule given in said letter and if not interested, then their amount received shall be refunded, with simple interest @ 8% per annum. Complainant did not communicate any option to the opposite parties as he was interested to get back his amount with interest, atleast @ 15% per annum, as being awarded by Hon’ble Apex Court in similar cases. But the opposite parties, sent cheque dated 3.6.2013 for Rs.1,73,634/- i.e.  refund of principal amount of Rs.1,20,550/- with interest amount of Rs.53,084/- (presumably  by @ 8% simple interest).  Aggrieved against this, the complainant approached the District Forum praying for interest  @ 15%  per annum, from the date of deposit till payment, besides damages for his harassment, mental agony etc. and litigation expenses.
3. Contesting the complaint, the OPs pleaded that the concerned competent authority, has suggested major changes in the layout plan, which resulted into non availability of the unit types and so said option letter dated 8.10.2012 was sent, asking the complainant to give his preference, otherwise to return his money with 8% simple interest. It was also pleaded that the complainant was not a ‘consumer’ and this Forum had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. However, the learned District Forum rejected the pleas raised by the OP and accepted the complaint vide order dated 05.02.2015 granting the aforesaid relief. 
4. Against the impugned order, the OP/appellant has filed appeal before us, reiterating their pleas as raised before the District Forum. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. After the perusal of the record and having gone through the impugned order, we do not find any legal infirmity in the conclusion arrived at by the learned District Forum. Therefore we reject the contention of the appellant and agree with the findings of the learned District Forum. However, it is evident that the OP categorically enquired from the complainant vide letter dated 08.10.2012 (annexure A-2) as to whether he was interested in opting for the revised scheme or not. In case no reply was received by 08.11.2012 “it shall be presumed that both option are not acceptable to you and you are not willing to continue your booking and you ready to take the refund of advance amount alongwith 8% simple interest”. The complainant did not respond to the above communication in time and it was on 25.05.2013 i.e. after six months that he asked the OPs to cancel his allotment and refund the amount deposited with interest till its realization. Despite this, clear stipulation in the terms and conditions of the OPs and the complainant’s request for cancellation, the learned District Forum has allowed the complaint by directing the OPs to refund the amount with 15% interest. This rate of interest on the face of it is against the contractual obligation and the commitment made by the complainant himself i.e. refund of the amount deposited at 8% interest and not 15%.
5. In view of this factual and legal position, we partly allow the appeal by modifying the impuged order and reduce the rate of interest from 15% to 8% retaining the remaining directions issued by the learned District Forum shall remain same.   
6. The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

January 04th, 2017

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

 

R.K.