BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 14^TH DAY OF MARCH 2022

ORDER

SRI.K.S.BILAGI, PRESIDENT

1. The complaint has been filed under Section 34 of C.P.Act, 2019 (herein under referred as an Act) for the following reliefs against the OPs:-

(a) Direct the OPs to pay Rs.4,80,000/- which is investment amount as agreed to pay after 21.12.2016.

(b) Direct the OPs to pay Rs.1,86,528/- towards interest on Rs.4,80,000/- from 25.11.2019 to 24.06.2021 at the rate of 24% p.a. for late payment.

(c) Direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony and physical suffering.

(d) Direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for compensation for deficiency of service.

(e) Direct the OPs to pay interest at the rate of 24% p.a. on the refund amount of Rs.4,80,000/- from the date of filling to till realization.

(f) Direct the OPs to pay the cost of litigation.

(g) Grant such other and further reliefs.      

2. The case set up by the complainant in brief is as under:-

As per the representation of OPs, the complainant had invested Rs.2,50,000/- on 29.01.2016 by paying the same by cheque in respect of site No.532.  OPs have issued receipt and executed security bond certificate on return investment.  OPs have agreed to pay Rs.4,80,000/- on 24.11.2019 by deducting Rs.10,000/- towards administrative charges.  Accordingly, the complainant by letter dated 22.11.2019 had requested the OPs to refund Rs.4,80,000/- with interest at 24% from 25.11.2019.  But, OPs failed to pay the amount.  Hence, this complaint.  The act of the OPs amounts to deficiency of service.

3. The notice has been duly served on the OPs. OPs have appeared through their advocate, but failed to file version.

4. Despite opportunity granted to the complainant, neither affidavit is filed nor argument is advanced.  We perused the records. 

5. The following points arise for our consideration:-

1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency of service on the part of OPs?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to relief mentioned in the complaint?
3. What order?

6. Our answers to the above points are as under:

       Point Nos.1 and 2:  Partly in the affirmative.

      Point No.3: As per final orders

REASONS

7. Point Nos.1 and 2:  Even though, OPs appeared through their counsel, but they failed to file version denying the claim made in the complaint.  The complainant also not filed affidavit evidence in support of his case.  The advocate for the complainant also failed to canvass the argument.  However, it is the duty of this Commission to verify the truthful allegations made in the complaint and documents produced along with complaint.
8. It has been proved from the allegations made in the complaint and document No.1 that the complainant has invested Rs.2,50,000/- in respect of site measuring 30 x 40 ft. with OPs by issuing cheque dated 30.01.2016.  The document No.2 indicates that the OPs agreed that they will refund the amount on maturity date 24.11.2019 after deducting Government taxes i.e. service charge, income tax, TDS which shall be borne by the complainant.  Document No.3 is the copy of security bond certificate which indicates that the OPs agreed to pay Rs.4,80,000/- against deposit amount of Rs.2,50,000/- after deducting Rs.10,000/- towards administrative charges after expiry of three years from 01.02.2016.  But, OPs failed to refund this amount despite letter dated 22.11.2019.
9. Even though, complainant deposited Rs.2,50,000/- and OPs agreed to refund Rs.4,80,000/- with interest after deducting Rs.10,000/- towards administrative charges.  If these facts are taken into consideration, the agreed rate of interest is 32% p.a.  According to the allegations made in the complaint, the complainant has invested Rs.2,50,000/- in respect of residential site.  The complainant claims interest at 24% p.a. on Rs.4,80,000/- and compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.  When the complainant has deposited Rs.2,50,000/- and rate of interest itself is 32% p.a., the complainant is not entitled for further interest from 25.11.2019 till filing this complaint and compensation.  The complainant has not adduced evidence what is his mental agony to claim interest at 24% p.a. and compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. The complainant is entitled for refund of Rs.4,80,000/- subject to deduction of Government taxes like service charges, income tax and TDS.  The complainant has availed service of advocate.  Therefore, it is proper to award Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation.  It is proper to impose condition on OPs to pay Rs.4,80,000/- after deducting taxes like TDS and income tax on this amount to the complainant with Rs.10,000/- costs.
10. Point No.3:- In view of the discussion made in preceding paragraph, the complaint requires to be allowed in part.  The OPs are liable to refund Rs.4,80,000/- after deducting TDS, Income tax and other government taxes if any with litigaiton cost of Rs.10,000/-. We proceed to pass the following 

  O R D E R

1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. The OPs shall refund Rs.4,80,000 after deducting necessary income tax, TDS, other government taxes with Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant.
3. The OPs shall comply this order within 60 days from this date.  Failing which, the OPs shall pay interest at 10% p.a. on amount payable after expiry of 60 days till realization.
4. Furnish the copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 14^th day of March, 2022)

Documents produced by the Complainant which are as follows:-