Some of the flat purchasers including the complainant filed the consumer complaints bearing Nos. 150/1994 and 151/1994 against the appellant builder on the ground that the appellant failed to complete the construction and hand over the flats to the respective flat purchasers. Those disputes came to be settled as per the order dated 14.05.1996 by the State Commission. When the execution application was filed there was again a settlement between the parties to the dispute and accordingly consent terms were submitted before the State Commission. By order dated 28.9.1998 passed in Misc. Application No. 60/1997, those consent terms were accepted and the original order was accordingly modified, incorporating the settlement in terms of the consent terms. As per said order, though original Complainant, Mrs.Rohini Karve, and the present Complainant, Mr. Sudhir Shah, were not signatories to those consent terms, the consent terms were made binding on them too. 3 According to the respondent, as per the consent terms, the appellant paid Rs.76,548/-; that in the order dated 19.9.1996 passed after the re-settlement under those consent terms, the appellant builder/developer agreed to sell him the flat admeasuring 355 sq. ft. area for total consideration of Rs.5,32,500/- against the consideration which was to be received by the respondents in terms of the settlement moulded into the decree by order dated 28.9.1998. The balance payment of Rs.2,96,949/- was adjusted as part-payment towards consideration. Besides that, Rs.50,000/- on 8.6.1999 and Rs.50,000/- on 16.2.2000 were also paid towards the part-consideration by the respondent to the appellant. Even after receiving such substantial amount of consideration, the appellant failed to hand over possession of the flat, as promised, to the respondent. The flat, originally allotted to the respondent as per earlier agreement, was also sold to another party by the appellant prior to the drawing up of the consent terms. State Commission disposed of the complaint with the following observations:- “Thus, the case of Complainant relating to the agreement purchasing flat having area 355 sq. ft. and the consideration paid as shown in the annexure to the complaint, supra, goes unchallenged or in other words deemed admitted. It is also made clear that the Opponent Builder/developer is not in a position to hand 4 over possession of the flat having area 355 sq. ft. as per the agreement between them and the Complainant. Under the circumstances, deficiency in service on the part of the opponent builder developer since well-established on that count, they i.e. Opponents are bound to compensate the Complainant Mr. Sudhir Shah for the same. In their written briefs of arguments, supra, the Opponents showed their willingness to refund the consideration paid of Rs.2,51,652/- plus Rs.50,000/- total amounting to Rs.3,01,652/- with interest @ 9% per annum as per the provisions of “Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, 1963”. Considering the consideration escalation in prices of the flats and the fact that Complainant Mr. Sudhir Shah is now effectively deprived of the property which he agreed to purchase, we find that it would be just and proper to award him interest @ 18% per annum while directing refund of the consideration paid by way of compensation. The interest @18% per annum is a rate agreed, even agreed long back at the time of settlement of their dispute as per the consent terms. Since the receipt of the entire consideration of Rs.3,96,949/-, (Rs.2,96,949/- + Rs.50,000/- + Rs.50,000/-_ as per the annexure deemed to be admitted, Complainant Mr. Sudhir Shah is entitled to get refund of said amount along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of their respective payments till their realization. Complainant himself calculated interest at Rs.2,42,878/- as per the annexure 5 to the complaint but since said interest being covered in the compensation which is being awarded, we do not intend to incorporate the same separately. Considering the interest awarded on the amount of refund and the way Complainant himself agreed and pleaded to refund the consideration paid which correlates to the terms of settlement reached earlier, we find no separate compensation towards mental torture needs to the awarded separately.” Following directions were issued : (i) Complaint is partly allowed. (ii) Opponents i.e. M/s.Shiv Construction and its partners – Mr.Vasant Sukrya Mhatre and Mr.Babubhai Bharambhatt, jointly and severally do refund `2,96,949/- paid on 30.06.1999, `50,000/- paid on 08.06.1999 and `50,000/- paid on 16.02.2000 to Complainant -Mr.Sudhir K. Shah along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of their respective payment till their realization. (iii) Opponents to bear their own costs and pay `25,000/- as costs to the Complainant - Mr.Sudhir K. Shah. (iv) Complaint stands disposed of accordingly. . (v) Inform the parties accordingly. 6 Since the flat had already been sold, State Commission has directed the appellant to return the deposited amount to the respondent with agreed rate of interest @ 18%. On the last date of hearing, counsel for the appellant had offered to give alternate flat No.701 measuring 355 sq.ft. to the respondent. Offer made by the appellant was not acceptable to the respondent, as according to the respondent, 7th floor had been illegally constructed; that otherwise also respondent was not interested in moving to the 7th floor. Only point urged by the counsel for the appellant is that the interest awarded by the State Commission @ 18% is on the higher side. Since 18% was the agreed rate of interest, plea taken by the appellant that the interest is on the higher side cannot be accepted. We do not find any infirmity in the order passed bythe State Commission. Appellant entered into a settlement with the respondent. As per that settlement, appellant agreed to give a flat measuring 355 Sq.ft. to the respondent for a total consideration of Rs.5,32,500/-. Respondent paid the entire amount. Flat was not handed over. During the execution proceedings, appellant made a statement that it is not in a position to hand over the possession of the flat. Since the flat had already been sold, 7 State Commission rightly moulded the relief and directed the appellant to pay the amount deposited by the respondent along with agreed rate of interest @ 18%. Settlement was arrived at between the parties twice. The appellant did not comply with the settlement arrived at between the parties. Conduct of the appellant is unethical and reprehensible. No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed. | 
