Vijaya Rashmi Developers And Ors. vs Parshuram Narayan Redij And Anr.

HEARD . IT is stated by learned Counsel for the petitioners/OPs that they have already deposited the sum of Rs. 35,000 with the District Forum. Further, they have executed the sale deed of the flat in favour of the respondent No. 1/complainant. The original sale deed has been sent to respondent No. 1 by Registered Post and the same has been received by him. It is further stated that execution of conveyance deed in favour of respondent No. 2/society is not possible, since there was no prayer in the original complaint. As the petitioners have already complied with the directions passed by the District Forum, the claim of respondent No. 1 stand satisfied.

RESPONDENT No. 1 filed a consumer complaint against petitioners making the following prayers: (a) It be decreed that the Sale Deed in respect of the Applicant should be executed.

(b) It be decreed that the remaining work to be done at Survey No. 43/5 such as Road, Society internal road, security cabin, garden, club house, swimming pool be completed at the earliest.

District Forum, vide order dated 16.7.2008 partly allowed the complaint. It passed the following directions: The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay to the complainant, an amount of Rs. 35,000 together with interest thereon @ 9% p.a., as from 30.10.1999 till realization of sums by the complainant.

The opposite parties are further directed to provide the amenities and facilities to the scheme, as described in the brochure.

The opposite parties are further directed to execute and duly register the deed of conveyance in favour of the registered society and the sale deed in favour of the Complainant, as per the relevant provisions of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963.

AGGRIEVED by the order of District Forum, petitioners filed appeal before the State Commission which partly allowed their appeal, vide its impugned order dated 15.10.2010. The operative portion of impugned order read as under (i) Appeal is partly allowed.

(ii) Impugned order is modified.

The direction, "The opposite parties are further directed to provide the amenities and facilities to the scheme, as described in the brochure", is set aside.

(iii) Other part of the impugned order stands confirmed.

NOT satisfied with the order of the State Commission, petitioners have filed this revision petition. Direction given by the District Forum to the petitioners to execute and register the deed of conveyance in favour of the Society (Respondent No. 2) cannot be sustained, as respondent No. 1 has not claimed any such relief in its complaint. The same is set aside accordingly.

RESPONDENT has sent a letter dated 11.4.2013 to this Commission stating that the petitioner has executed the sale deed in his favour. However, as per order of the District Forum as well as State Commission, he is entitled to interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 30.10.1999 till its realization on the sum of Rs. 35,000. Thus, respondent has prayed that the order with regard to the interest passed by the District Forum as well as State Commission should be maintained.

SINCE , petitioners have executed the sale deed in favour of respondent No. 1 and which fact has been admitted by respondent No. 1, vide his letter dated 11.4.2013, the only question which remains for consideration is as to whether respondent No. 1 is entitled to interest @ 9% p.a. on a sum of Rs. 35,000 with effect from 30.10.1999 till realization or not. Though petitioners have deposited a sum of Rs. 35,000 with the District Forum, however, they have nowhere stated as on which date this amount had been deposited with the District Forum. Under these circumstances, petitioners are directed to pay to respondent No. 1 interest @ 9% p.a. on a sum of Rs. 35,000 (Rupees thirty five thousand) with effect from 30.10.1999 till the date of payment/deposit. In case they have already deposited, men they need not deposit Petitioners are given eight weeks to pay/deposit the same. In case, petitioners fail to pay/deposit the aforesaid amount within the specified period, then respondent No. 1 would be at liberty to recover the same in accordance with provisions of Section 25 read with Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Present petition stands disposed of accordingly.