AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 02.07.2007 of the Mahrashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (in short, ''the State Commission''). By this order, the State Commission dismissed the appeal of the petitioner against the order dated 27.04.2006 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai (in short, ''the District Forum'') principally on the ground of delay which the State Commission did not find fit to condone.
THE respondent/complainant had approached the District Forum in 1993 with the allegation of deficiency in service against the petitioner/opposite party (OP) in that the latter discriminated against him in the allotment of 70 sq. mtr. flat for which he had made the necessary initial deposit. By an ex parte order dated 31.01.1995, the District Forum directed the petitioner to allot a flat as prayed to the respondent/complainant and also a compensation of Rs.2,000/-. The petitioner appealed against this order to the State Commission, which by its order dated 08.02.1996 affirmed the District Forum''s order. The petitioner then challenged the order of the State Commission before this Commission by way of revision petition. By its order dated 10.08.1999, this Commission set aside the impugned order of the State Commission as well as that passed by the District Forum with the direction that the petitioner/OP shall be bound by its earlier offer that the respondent/complainant would be entitled to take the flat in the New Panvel Scheme at the same rate as paid by other allottees in 1996 and the respondent/complainant shall, in turn, exercise his option to accept the flat at New Panvel within four weeks from the date of the order, failing which it would be open to the petitioner to dispose of the flat.
It would appear that the petitioner CIDCO made a fresh offer to the respondent/complainant in terms of this Commission''s order dated 10.08.1999 which the later declined. Thereupon CIDCO refunded Rs.6,500/- to him.
AGGRIEVED by this refund, the complainant filed another consumer complaint claiming interest @ 14% per annum on Rs.7,500/- which he had paid to CIDCO for registration. By its order dated 27.04.2006, the District Forum directed refund of Rs.25,441/- with interest @ 9% per annum from 07.09.1999 till payment (on or before 05.05.2006) and cost of Rs.500/-. This led, in appeal by the petitioner, to the impugned order dated 02.07.2007 of the State Commission. We have heard Mr. Ajit S. Bhasme and Mr. Joseph Koshy, learned counsel for the parties and have carefully considered the relevant documents brought on record.
IT is noticed that by its order dated 18.09.2007, this Commission had directed the petitioner to pay the respondent/complainant Rs.7,500/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit till payment within four weeks. This order was complied with by the petitioner and an affidavit to this effect was also filed. Mr. Bhasme vehemently reiterated that the respondent/complainant was not entitled to any interest on the amount deposited in accordance with the relevant resolution of Board of Directors (BOD) of the petitioner CIDCO. He clarified that interest @ 14% per annum on the registration deposits was admissible, under the said Board resolution, to only such allottees who accepted the allotment of flats and the said deposits with interest thereon were then adjusted against the amounts due to the petitioner. However, for persons who opted out of the scheme, the deposit was to be refunded without any interest. Therefore, the respondent/complainant was not entitled to any interest on his deposit. On careful consideration of the rule acts and circumstances of the case, particularly the compliance of the directions dated 18.09.2007 of this Commission by the petitioner we are not inclined to interfere with the orders of the Fora below, as a special case. However, we clarify that this shall not be cited as a precedent against the petitioner in any comparable proceedings.
THE revision petition is disposed of in the foregoing terms.