Anita Roy vs V K Soin

COMPLAINANT-petitioners booked two flats with the respondent-Builder and deposited Rs. 2,19,113 and Rs. 1,23,785, respectively, towards the cost of the said flats. The respondent did not give possession of the flats, which was to be given within 2 years of the booking. Thus, being aggrieved, petitioners filed the Complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, Udyog Sadan, C-22 and 23, Institutional Area (Behind Qutab Hotel), New Delhi (for short ''the District Forum'') alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.

ON being served, respondent-Builder filed the Written Statement denying the allegation made by the complainants stating that the possession could not be delivered as the petitioners failed to make balance payments after 15.11.1990.

DISTRICT Forum, after taking into consideration, the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, allowed the Complaint and directed the respondent to refund Rs. 1,94,815 to petitioner No. l and Rs. 1,21,355 to petitioner No. 2 along with interest @ 10% w.e.f. 15.11.1990 within 1 month from the date of receipt of Order.

AGGRIEVED against the Order passed by the District Forum, respondent-Builder filed the Appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (for short ''the State Commission''). The State Commission disposed of the Appeal directing the respondent to pay, in all, Rs. 1,94,815 along with compensation amounting to Rs. 25,000 to petitioner No. 1 and Rs .1,21,355 along with compensation amounting to Rs. 25,000 to petitioner No. 2 within 2 months. No order as to interest was passed. It was held that there was no term in the contract executed between the parties that if the respondent fails to deliver possession within a reasonable period, the consumer would be entitled to a specific rate of interest. That Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 entitles a consumer to receive compensation for the loss and injury suffered by him was due to the negligence of the Opposite Party.

AGGRIEVED against the Order passed by the State Commission, complainants filed the Revision Petition seeking interest on the amount awarded. Petitioners seek the restoration of the Order dated 2.6.2003 passed by the District Forum.

DR. R. C. Saxena, Authorised Representative of the petitioners, contends that the petitioners are required to be compensated by payment of interest for having been deprived of the use of the money which they have deposited with the respondent for the purchase of flats. That the amount remained deposited with the respondent which they must have put to use and the District Forum had rightly directed the respondent to pay interest on the amount deposited by the petitioners. That normally the Courts grant interest for being deprived of the use of the money deposited by them and the State Commission has erred in setting aside the direction issued by the District Forum to pay interest on the deposited amount with the Order of lump sum compensation of Rs. 25,000

AS against this, Counsel for the respondent states that C.P. No. 120 of 1994 was filed in the Hon''ble High Court for winding-up, which was admitted and an Official Liquidator was appointed on 18.8.1999. In C.P. No. 120 of 1994, Hon''ble High Court, vide its Order dated 7.9.2000, had restrained the respondent-Builder from selling, transferring, creating Third Party interest or parting with the possession of the immovable properties. Vide Order dated 20.9.2003, Hon''ble High Court directed the Official Liquidator to take over the assets and records of the respondent. That the appointment of Official Liquidator was revoked by the Hon''ble High Court on 21.5.2004 but till date, the Official Liquidator has not released the properties and the documents of the respondent. Respondent has placed the Orders passed by the Hon''ble High Court, referred above, after taking permission from this Commission.

AFTER hearing the Counsel for the parties and on going through the Order passed by the Hon''ble High Court on 18.8.1999 in C. P. No. 120 of 1994, the Order dated 7.9.2000 restraining the respondent from selling, transferring, creating Third Party interest and parting with the possession of the immovable properties, the Order dated 20.9.2003 directing the Official Liquidator to take over the assets and records of the respondent, the Order dated 21.5.2004 revoking the appointment of the Official Liquidator and the Order dated 20.9.2008 which shows that the properties and documents of the respondent have yet not been released, we are of the opinion that the Order passed by the State Commission in setting aside the direction issued by the District Forum to pay interest on the awarded amount and, in its place, directing the respondent to pay the sum of Rs. 25,000 by way of compensation, is justified.

IT needs to be noted that the District Forum had passed the Order for refund of the amount along with interest on 2.6.2003 on which date the Company had already been ordered to be wound-up by the High Court of Delhi and the Official Liquidator had taken over the possession of the assets and properties of the respondent. The State Commission passed the Order of 28.9.2005, by which date, the High Court had revoked the appointment of the Official Liquidator but the assets and properties had not been handed over to the respondent.

KEEPING in view the financial position of the respondent-Company, we are of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Order passed by the State Commission to pay compensation instead of interest on the awarded amount, is just and appropriate.

IT may be mentioned here that the respondent has complied with the Order passed by the State Commission and has paid back the deposited/awarded amount along with compensation awarded by the State Commission.

FOR the reasons stated above, we find no merit in this Revision Petition and dismiss the same leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Revision Petition dismissed.