SOU.MANGALA GAJANAN KULKARNI vs NAGNATH BABURAO SHINDE

THIS revision petition arises out of the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, whereby the State Commission upheld the order of the District Forum. The facts in brief are as follows :

THE complainant alleges that he had paid Rs. 93,750/- in consideration of the flat to be constructed and handed over by the opposite party within 15 months from the date of agreement. Even after the lapse of five years the opposite party could not construct and hand over the possession of the flat to the complainant. THE complainant approached the District Forum claiming interest at 18% on the amount of Rs. 93,750/- which comes to Rs. 58,037/-; Rs. 5,000/- towards harassment; Rs. 17,625/- for recovery of extra charges from him for construction. On notice being issued the opposite party filed its written version therein he has taken the stand that the complainant had already moved the State Commission with similar complaint and the State Commission directed the complainant to move the Civil Court, he has not received the entire payment and prayed that the complaint be dismissed. THE District Forum upon hearing both the parties framed the following questions to be decided : (1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party ? (2) What order ?

The District Forum while adverting to the affidavits on record filed by both the parties, by its well reasoned order held that non-commencement of the construction and depriving complainant of the consideration amount without handing over possession of the flat tantamount to deficiency in service. For the harassment undergone by the complainant, the District Forum awarded Rs. 5,000/- as compensation. As far as the claim of the complainant for the sum of Rs. 17,625/- is concerned, the District Forum disallowed the same. In view of the above discussion the District Forum directed the opposite party to pay to the complainant Rs. 58,037/- with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint before the District Forum, i.e. 17.5.1994 till the date of payment; Rs. 5,000/- for harassment and Rs. 3,000/- for costs of the complaint.

Feeling aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the opposite party went in appeal to the State Commission. None had appeared before the State Commission inspite of notice. Hence the State Commission upon hearing the Counsel for the respondent and upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case held that interest at 18% was on the higher side and hence reduced the same to 15% p.a. and upheld the order of the District Forum in all other respects.

STILL not satisfied the opposite party has come in revision before us. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. We have also gone through the impugned order as well as the order of the District Forum. We find that District Forum while granting the relief had ordered refund of Rs. 58,037/- and not Rs. 93,750/- which was the amount actually deposited, Rs. 58,037/- were claimed as interest only. Therefore, this error which went undetected at State Commission level also is hereby corrected. It is ordered that the amount of Rs. 93,750/- be read in place of Rs. 58,037/- in the final order of the District Forum and the State Commission. No other point was raised before us. Rest of the impugned order shall remain as it is. The Revision Petition is disposed of in the above terms. Revision Petition disposed of.