Madhu vs SWASTIK BUILDERS

IT is the complainant who is the petitioner before us. The petition arises out of proceedings initiated under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant.

THE dispute pertains to construction of a flat in a scheme floated by the respondent/builder. It is not necessary for us to go into various details except to note the order dated 6.4.1998 of the State Commission arising out of proceedings in a complaint by the complainant under Section 12 of the Act. THE order dated 6.4.1998 reads as under : "THE appeal is allowed. THE order of the District Forum is modified as follows : (a) THE appellant/opposite party shall offer other flat in the same Scheme to the original complainant within three months of this order without charging any additional price. If the complainant does not accept the said offer, the opposite party shall refund the amount paid i.e. Rs. 1,97,350/- within four weeks thereafter. In the event of delay the said amount shall carry interest of 18% from the expiry of the above period. (b) No order as to cost. Sd/- Sd/- G.R. Bedge, Member A.A. Halbe, President

It appears respondent did not offer the flat within 3 months and he sought some clarifications of the order which was declined. In the year 2000, complainant filed proceedings under Section 27 of the Act against the respondent for allotment of flat to him. It, however, so happened that since the respondent did not give the flat, he complied with the order dated 6.4.1998 of the State Commission by depositing an amount of Rs. 2,61,192.72 with the Registrar, District Forum, Nagpur. District Forum therefore, confirmed satisfaction of the order.

Aggrieved from that order of the District Forum, complainant went in revision before the State Commission which after hearing the parties affirmed the order of the District Forum. Still feeling aggrieved, complainant has come before us. His main grievance is that he should have been given interest not after the expiry of 3 months as ordered by the State Commission but from the date he paid the amount to the respondent. In view of the order dated 6.4.1998 of the State Commission which has become final it is difficult for us to agree to the submission of the complainant. We, however, do feel that perhaps ends of justice would have been met if interest would have been awarded to the complainant from the date he paid the amount to the respondent builder. We, however, feel quite helpless in the matter to assist the complainant. This complaint is, therefore, dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.