C.G. GRIHA NIRMAN MANDAL vs VIJAY BAHADUR

-THIS appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 21st November, 2000 in Complaint No. 243/99 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (hereinafter called the ''Distt. Forum'' for short) directing the appellant to refund to the complainant/respondent, the amount deposited by him with interest @ 12% per annum, and also to pay Rs. 7,000/- as compensation for mental harassment as also costs of the complaint.

UNDISPUTABLY, the appellant floated a scheme for booking on sale of junior MIG houses. Complainant/respondent applied for being allotted a junior MIG-II house. As per the advertisement price of the house was Rs. 1,55,000/-, which was payable as per terms of the said scheme mentioned in the said advertisement issued by the original appellant M.P. Housing Board. The complainant/respondent has undisputably deposited an amount of Rs. 1,11,000/- towards the payment of price of the said house. However, it appears that subsequently, the appellant/Housing Board enhanced the original price at Rs. 2,29,900/-. The appellant/Housing Board intimated the complainant, by its letter dated 8.9.1998 that the balance of Rs. 1,58,900/- be deposited by 23.9.1998 so that the allotment may be made in his favour. Subsequently, by another letter dated 9.12.1998, the appellant again informed the complainant that the price of the house was fixed at Rs. 2,42,723/- and that as the amount of Rs. 1,11,000/- has been deposited by the complainant, therefore, the balance of the price i.e., Rs. 1,31,723/- be deposited by the complainant by 22.12.1998 i.e., after 13 days of the said letter, so that his case may be considered for allotment of the house. It was further intimated that in case the amount was not deposited as per above demand, the registration of the complainant for the house would be cancelled. The complainant averred that the enhancement of price as above, demanded from him, was for a huge sum and that, it was not possible for the complainant to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 1,31,723/- as demanded by the appellant by its letter dated 9.12.1998. Hence, the complainant requested that amount deposited by him with the appellant be refunded. Since the appellant did not refund the amount to the complainant, he filed the complaint.

The complaint was resisted by the appellant/Housing Board. It was averred that the amount of instalments towards the price, was not deposited by the complainant on due dates and that the complainant was entitled to deduct 10% from the registration charges, as per terms of the agreement. It was averred that after deducting 10%, from the registration charges the balance Rs. 1,09,450/- has been refunded to the complainant. It was further averred that the Distt. Forum was not competent to hear and decide the complaint.

THE Distt. Forum allowed the complaint and directed the appellant to refund the amount deducted by it and also to pay compensation to the complainant/respondent. The learned Counsel for the parties were heard. The record was perused.

IT is not in dispute that the complainant had applied for the registration of the house. He had deposited an amount of Rs. 1,11,000/- as was admitted by the appellant in their letter dated 9.12.1998. IT is also not in dispute that the original price of the house booked by the complainant as initially publicised by the appellant/Housing Board was Rs. 1,58,900/-. IT was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 2,42,742/- and additional amount of Rs. 1,31,723/- was demanded by the complainant/respondent, with the direction that the same be deposited by 22.12.1998 i.e., within 13 days of the date of the said letter. Obviously enhancement of price as above was to the extent of more than 70% of the original price as publicised. Moreover, a very short period for the payment of balance of amount given to the complainant/respondent. Such a demand can only be termed as high handed and the complainant cannot be expected to deposit and comply with such enhanced demand within the short time, granted by the appellant/Housing Board. Prayer for refund of the amount deposited by him by the complainant was, therefore, justified. It appears that the appellant deducted 10% of the registration amount while refunding the amount deposited by the complainant. However, the appellant has not shown any document to justify such deduction. A brochure containing some terms and conditions for the allotment of houses, has been placed on record, on behalf of the appellant. However, on perusal thereof, it appears that it relates to some other scheme, for which registration was to be done from 12.10.1992 to 11.12.1992. Obviously, the said document and the terms and conditions mentioned therein relate to the registration of the house by the complainant which was done in March, 96 i.e., much after the said brochure was issued. The appellant has failed to produce the terms and conditions regarding the registration by the complainant, and has thus failed to show that deduction of 10% of the registration charges was justified. Even otherwise, in the foregoing circumstances, which we have already mentioned, the demand of the appellant for payment of disproportionately high enhanced price was unjust and, therefore, the complainant was entitled to get the refund of the whole of amount deposited by him. In view of above, there was obviously deficiency in service by the appellant in not refunding in whole the amount deposited by him, to the complainant/respondent. The complainant is, therefore, justified in raising the grievance as above and praying for the refund of the amount, deducted by the appellant. Now, the next question for consideration is: as to what should be the compensation awarded?

IT is noticed in the above context that the appellant in their written version in para 6 have averred that the appellant has refunded a sum of Rs. 1,09,450/- after deducting 10% registration charges amounting to Rs. 1,550/-. The date of aforesaid repayment however has not been mentioned. However, from the notice dated 18.5.1999 by the complainant to the appellant/Housing Board, it appears that the amount as above was refunded to him, after his demand by letter dated 7.1.1999. Thus, it appears that the refund as above was made somewhere after 7.1.1999 and before the date of notice i.e., 18.5.1999. Since the learned Counsel for both the parties during arguments, were unable to make a definite statement about the precise date on which the refund was made, it may be treated to be in the month of May, 99. Thus the appellant would be liable to pay interest on the deposited amount from the date of deposit till 1.5.1999, on various amounts deposited by the complainant. The appellant will also be liable to refund Rs. 1,550/- deducted as 10% of the registration charges because there was no justification for making such a deduction. The compensation of Rs. 7,000/- as awarded by the Distt. Forum for harassment and inconvenience caused to the complainant also calls for no interference.

THE appeal is, therefore, partly allowed. Instead of the direction for payment of interest given by the Distt. Forum, we direct that besides the refund to the complainant Rs. 1,550/- deducted by the appellant, respondent shall pay interest @ 10% per annum on the amounts deposited by the complainant from the dates of deposits. Interest as above shall be payable on the said amounts till 1.5.1999, as detailed in para 13(a) of the impugned order. THE appellant shall also pay to the complainant/respondent Rs. 7,000/- as compensation for inconvenience as awarded by the Distt. Forum, besides the cost of this appeal which is quantified at Rs. 2,000/- (two thousand) only. THE above amount shall be payable within 2 months from the date of this order, failing which interest @ 12% shall also be paid by the appellant to the complainant, from the date of default. Appeal partly allowed.