Bagewadi L.M.G. vs Megacity Developers Pvt. Ltd.

We heard this case in admission stage. Since the learned counsel for the respondent opposite party is present in respect of other cases, he accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. A copy of the paper book is given to him.

Very briefly the facts leading to filing the complaint were that the respondent opposite party had floated a residential layout under the name and style of "Vajragiri Township" at Bangalore-Mysore road in 1995. Opposite party respondent promised to complete the project within 60 months. The petitioner complainant attracted by the offer of the respondent opposite party, got himself enrolled as member of the scheme and paid several amounts, which are not in dispute. But when the possession was not being given and sale deed was not executed, complaint was filed before the District Forum, who allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to refund the deposited amount together with interest @ 18% p.a. right from the date of the respective agreement of sale, till payment, together with compensation of Rs. 4,00,000 and cost of Rs. 10,000 to the complainant. Not satisfied aggrieved by this order, both the parties filed appeals before the State Commission, which were disposed of by a common order in which the State Commission upheld the refund of the deposited amount alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. but reduced the compensation from Rs. 4,00,000 to Rs. 1,00,000 to the complainant, alongwith cost of Rs. 10,000.

Not satisfied with the relief given by the State Commission, this revision petition has been filed before us.

We heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the material on record.

The only issue before us is the reduction of amount of compensation from Rs. 4,00,000 awarded by the District Forum, to Rs. 1,00,000 by the State Commission.

After hearing the parties, we are satisfied that once the interest has been awarded @ 18% p.a., the petitioner complainant normally would not have been entitled to any compensation, but since the other party is not in revision petition before us, we are not interfering with this order. As per law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments, the grant of interest @ 18% p.a. is itself a sufficient compensation. When the State Commission has granted compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 alongwith interest @ 18% p.a., we see no justification to increase this amount of compensation as no ground has been shown to us to justify this increase.

In the aforementioned circumstances, we see no merit in this revision petition, hence dismissed.

No order as to costs.

The respondent opposite party is directed to make the payment in above terms within a period of three months from the date of pronouncement of this order, falling which the petitioner complainant shall be at liberty to proceed against them under Section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.