V.G.P. INVESTMENT vs EMILY BASTIN

THE complainant had booked a plot with the opposite party in VGP Santhos Nagar and paid a sum of Rs. 1,000/-. THE complainant issued a cheque for Rs. 40,000/- towards the sale amount. THE balance to be paid was only Rs. 9,400/-. THE opposite party issued a receipt for Rs. 40,000/- on 3.6.1986. THE complainant issued a cheque for Rs. 9,400/-. THE cheque was dishonoured. THE dishonour of the cheque was not informed immediately. THE opposite party had issued a receipt for Rs. 9,400/-. On 19.9.1986 a bill for plot No. 15 was prepared by the opposite party and given to the complainant. But the opposite party had virtually transferred the plot to a stranger. THE complainant wrote a letter to the opposite party about her investing Rs. 41,000/- in the year 1986. While so, they have sold the said plot No. 15 to a thirty party. Thus there was deficiency in service. Hence the complaint.

THE opposite party admitted that the complainant booked a plot viz., plot No. 15 and paid a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as advance on 3.4.1986 and a sum of Rs. 40,000/- by way of cheque. THE other cheque for Rs. 9,400/- was dishonoured. THE complainant was informed about the same. But the complainant did not take any further step. It is true that the complainant was informed that the said plot No. 15 will be sold to the complainant fixing the sale amount at Rs. 55,045/-. THE purchaser can get the site registered only after paying the entire value after receipt of the bill. THE complainant did not evince any interest to make full payment and obtained registration for the sale of the plot. It is not true to say that the plot was transferred to third parties without the consent of the complainant. THE complainant is not entitled to get back the amount with interest. The lower Forum allowed the complaint directing the opposite party to refund the sum of Rs. 41,000/- with interest at 18% from 9.4.1986 till date of payment and cost of Rs. 250/-.

The fact that a sum of Rs. 41,000/- was received by the opposite party from the complainant as early as 3.6.1986 is not disputed. The complainant had to pay a sum of Rs. 9,400/-. Admittedly a cheque was sent for Rs. 9,400/- which was dishonoured. It is true, therefore, that the complainant had not paid the entire amount due and it is also true that the complainant would be entitled to have the sale deed in her favour only if the entire amount is paid towards the same. It is admitted that on 19.9.1986 the opposite party sent a bill for plot No. 15 mentioning about the total sale amount for registration. After receipt of the bill, the complainant of course did not choose to make any further payment. Therefore, from 19.9.1986 till 1995 the complainant did not choose to take any action. Therefore, it was that the opposite party sold the said plot to some other person. Hence the action of the opposite party in selling the plot to a third party cannot be questioned. But at the same time, it is the bounden-duty of the opposite party to return the money paid by the complainant towards the said plot. They have failed to do so. Therefore, this would definitely amount to deficiency in service. Especially when the complainant has asked for it, it ought to have been returned to the complainant. Thus there is deficiency in service in that regard and, therefore, it was rightly ordered by the lower Forum that the opposite party should refund the sum of Rs. 41,000/- with interest.

NOW coming to the interest-The lower Forum has allowed interest at 18% from 9.4.1986. The bill amount under Ex. A-5 gives the value of the plot. The complainant has only chosen to address the local Consumer Council on 30.7.1995 requesting them to interfere in the matter and get her back the amount. In their letter dated 2nd April, 1995 the opposite party has stated that they are willing to refund the sum of Rs. 41,000/-, but in spite of it they have not chosen to immediately refund the same. Therefore, in such circumstances, we have to hold that the opposite party is liable to refund a sum of Rs. 41,000/- with interest. The details regarding when the balance amount has to be paid and other conditions of the sale agreement are not made available. Similarly the date when the site was allotted to a third party, is also not furnished. Therefore, in such circumstances, the lower Forum had ordered the opposite party to pay interest from 9.4.1986 which, in the circumstances, we deem it to be fit and proper. Now coming to the rate of interest-We feel that directing the payment of interest at 18% from 9.4.1986 will be somewhat on the high side and a loss to the opposite party. Therefore, we deem it fit to reduce the interest to 12%.

IN the result, the appeal is allowed in part, directing the opposite party to refund the sum of Rs. 41,000/- with interest at 12% from 9.4.1986 till realization with cost of Rs. 250/-. Time for compliance, two months. If the amount is not paid within two months, it shall carry interest at 15%. Appeal partly allowed.