Heard the learned counsel for the appellant at the admission stage. 2. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 19.08.2019 passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (‘the State Commission’) in Consumer Complaint no.59 of 2014. 3. The State Commission vide its order dated 19.08.2019 has allowed compensation of Rs.3,78,000/- which is as per the agreement and Rs.2.00 lakh as compensation for mental agony. Apart from this, cost of Rs.10,000/- has also been awarded. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the respondent was a defaulter and he has defaulted for more than 1000 days in paying the amount and therefore, he is not entitled to compensation for the delayed possession as per the agreement, wherein Rs.7000/- per month has been committed by the OP to pay as compensation for the delay in possession provided the allottee is not a defaulter. Learned counsel has further stated that interest for the defaulted period is about Rs.88,000/- which the opposite party has not charged from the complainant. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant further states that the complainants are living in South Africa and they have filed the complaint from this address only. As the compensation has been awarded on the basis of agreement, there is no justification for the award of Rs.2.00 lakh as compensation for mental agony and harassment. 5. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material on record. It is seen that the complainants have given their address of South Africa and have also filed the complaint from this address only. The main argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the respondent is a defaulter in the payment and Rs.88,000/- was due on the complainants which was waived off by the opposite party and therefore, the compensation granted by the State Commission is not justified. It is seen that Rs.3,78,000/- was already due as compensation to be paid as per the agreement by the opposite party to the complainant. However, even if the amount due of Rs.88,000/- (penalty for delayed payment) is taken into consideration and the deduction is allowed from the total compensation awarded by the State Commission, still the OP will be required to pay Rs.4,90,000/-. Clearly, the possession was due in the year 2010 as per the agreement, however, the same was not given till 2014. This clearly shows that there is a delay of more than three years in giving the possession and therefore, the complainants are entitled for some compensation for the delayed possession. The State Commission has awarded a compensation of Rs.2.00 lakh, however after deduction of Rs.88,000/- it comes to Rs.1,12,000/- which seems reasonable and the same has been granted without any agreement. The complainant is entitled to get Rs.4,90,000/- (Rs.3,78,000/- as compensation as per the agreement + Rs.1,12,000/-, compensation for mental agony and harassment). 6. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed and the order of the State Commission is modified to the extent that the appellant will pay Rs.4,98,000/- (rupees four lakh ninety eight thousand only) instead of Rs.5,78,000/- to the complainant. Apart from this modification, rest of the order of the State Commission shall remain unchanged. No notice is being issued in this case to the respondents/ complainants as they are residing in South Africa and if they come from South Africa for contesting the case, it will involve much more expenditure on their part. However, it is made clear that if the complainants are aggrieved with this order, they can approach this Commission. With these directions, the present appeal no. 2094 of 2019 is disposed of. |
