(Delivered on 28/08/2018)

PER SHRI B.A. SHAIKH, HON’BLE PRESIDING MEMBER.

1.         This appeal is filed by the original  complainant  feeling  aggrieved by an order dated 10/07/2015, passed by the District Consumer Forum, Nagpur by which  consumer complaint  No. 347/2013 has been partly allowed and following  directions  have been given,

i.          The complaint  is partly allowed.

ii.          The opposite party (for short O.P.) shall refund  to the complainant /appellant herein  Rs. 76,000/- with interest at the rate of 11% p.a.  from 09/07/2008 till its realisation  by the said  complainant /appellant herein.

iii.         The O.P. shall pay to the complainant/ appellant herein  compensation  of Rs. 25,000/- for physical and mental harassment  and litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/-.

2.         We have heard  advocate  Mr. M.M. Vinchurkar appearing for the appellant  and Advocate Mr. S.M. Kasture appearing for the respondent/original O.P. We have also perused the record and proceedings of the appeal.

3.         The appellant filed  the complaint  before the Forum below, seeking  following reliefs  against the respondent herein.

a.         The respondent  be directed to allot a Duplex  or tenement  to the complainant   at Mouza- Digdoha, Nagpur  in their 28^th MIG Scheme for  which  the complainant  has deposited an amount of Rs. 76,000/- on 09/07/2008 along with an application.

b.         If it is not possible by any reason  to allot the Duplex/tenement at Mouza Digdoha Nagpur  then to allot the Duplex/Tenement at any other place where the  Maharashtra Housing  Development  Authority  (MHADA) is implementing  their  residential project in Nagpur.

c.         If it is not possible  to allot any tenement /duplex  at Nagpur, then  refund an amount of Rs. 76,000/- with interest  at the rate of 18% p.a.  from  the date of deposit till  realisation  of the said amount.

d.         Grant  compensation  of Rs. 50,000/- for mental  and physical  harassment.

e.         Saddle cost of  the proceeding on the O.P./respondent  herein to the extent of Rs.10,000/-.

4.         The said complaint  was resisted by the  O.P./respondent herein by filing reply as under,

             It was defence  of the O.P./respondent herein  that  the  lay out plan was submitted  to the  Town Planning Department on 17/03/2008 for its approval on the basis of possession receipt.  However,  said   authority  vide letter dated 20/10/2010 informed  O.P. that  for  land of  Digdoh area,  Nagpur  Improvement  Trust (NIT) has been declared  as the  Special Planning Authority  and so the lay out plan  was to be  submitted  to the Nagpur Improvement Trust.  Accordingly, after obtaining  administrative approval for a different  scheme,  it was revealed that  the land handed over by the Government  being surplus  & is actually  reduced by 0.3317 Hectare   which was as per  possession  receipt as 0.5371 Hectare.  Thus, the Collector , ULC Department and Town Planning  Authority  are  proper  and  necessary party to the present  proceeding. The complainant has not joined  the  same  as O.Ps.

5.         A  defence  of the O.P. was  that   it informed   the appellant  regarding  cancellation of the scheme  vide letter  No. 3299, dated 03/04/2013 along with  deposited amount  by cheque  bearing No. 003702 dated 30/03/2013.  However,  appellant /complainant  instead of  encashing the  said cheque , returned the cheque  on 20/06/2013. It  is also submitted that  the  same is abound  by the respondent  and therefore, it was prayed   that complaint may be dismissed.

6.         The District Consumer Forum below after hearing  both the parties and considering the evidence brought on record partly allowed the complaint  as  above, directing the respondent  to refund  of Rs. 76,000/- with  interest , compensation  and cost as specified above in para No. 1.

7..        The learned advocate  of the appellant  submitted that  original  O.P./respondent herein   utilized the amount  of Rs. 76,000/- from 09/07/2008 and did not inform  anything  from the date of that  deposit  to the appellant about cancellation  of the scheme. He further submitted that  for the first time in the year 2013 the O.P./ respondent herein   informed the appellant  about  cancellation  of scheme  and hence,  it was necessary  for the respondent herein  to refund  Rs. 76,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a.  to the complainant.  He also submitted that  the   original complainant /appellant  returned cheque  of Rs. 76,000/- because   the  O.P./respondent  did not pay the interest over the said amount after  utilization   of said amount  for  such a long period .  He therefore,  requested that  the impugned order  may be modified by giving direction  to the  respondent  to refund  Rs. 76,000/- with interest at  the rate of 18% p.a..

8.         On the other hand, the learned advocate of the respondent  submitted that  in the year 2013 the  scheme  was cancelled  for  the reason given  in the aforesaid  reply of the  respondent  and  therefore Rs. 76,000/- were   returned  by way of cheque  dated 30/03/2013 to the appellant but   the appellant  returned the said cheque.  He also submitted that  the Forum below  even though  awarded interest at the rate of 11% p.a.  from 09/07/2008  till its realisation by the  appellant.  He also submitted that  the appellant was entitled to interest  over Rs. 76,000/- from 09/07/2008 till 30/03/2013 only but the Forum below  awarded the said  interest at the rate of 11% p.a.  from 09/07/2008 till  realisation of that amount by the appellant and therefore,  there is no question  of  now enhancing the rate of interest  from  11% to 18%. He therefore, requested  that appeal may be  dismissed.

 9.        We find that  admittedly when after taking all the efforts by the respondent  it could not  implement  the scheme  due to  difficulties specified  in its reply, the respondent  rightly  cancelled  the  said  scheme  and tried  to refund  Rs. 76,000/- to the appellant  but  appellant   returned  the cheque  of that amount to respondent.  In our view though the respondent  used Rs.76,000/- from 09/07/2008 till 30/03/2013, still there is no deliberate  fault or inaction   on the part of the  so as to  enhance the rate of interest  from  11% to 18%. Moreover, as the respondent  cancelled   the scheme due to  technical difficulties specified in its above reply, the  District Consumer Forum below  has  not restricted  the interest  for the period from 09/07/2008 to 30/03/2013, but it  awarded interest  from 09/07/2008  till realisation  of Rs. 76,000/-  by  the appellant.  Therefore, we find that  the rate of interest  granted by the Forum below  over Rs. 76,000/- is just and proper  and there  is no proper  ground  for enhancing  of rate of  interest from  11% to 18%. Moreover,  at the  same  time  the District Consumer Forum below  also granted  compensation  Rs. 25,000/- for  physical and mental harassment and litigation cost of  Rs.  10,000/-, which is also just and proper.

10.       Thus, we find that  there is no merit  in this appeal  and it deserves to be  dismissed .

ORDER

i.          The appeal is dismissed.

ii.          The impugned order is confirmed.

iii.         No order as to cost in appeal.

iv.        Copy of order be furnished to both the parties, free of cost.