Back
MADHYA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL
Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.K. Jain,
President & Mrs. Pramila S. Kumar, Member
KU. CHITRA SHARMA—Appellant
versus
M.P. HOUSING BOARD—Respondent
Appeal Nos. 266 and 570 of 2005—Decided on 6.6.2005
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. Mohan Chouksey, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Nitin Pandit, Advocate.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 12, 17 and 13 - Motor cycle, manufactured by appellant, purchased by complainant had defects comprising starting problem, low mileage, hard gear, improper focus light etc. - Defects were not rectified despites various services taken for repair - Dist. Forum allowing complaint directed appellant to replace motorcycle with new one free from any defect and with fresh warranty and pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for mental agony and harassment - Appeal - Contention that mandatory provision of Section 13 of the Act was not followed as vehicle was not tested by any competent technician or at laboratory - During appeal vehicle was taken by appellant and even though it was kept for 45 days defects were not rectified - No interference was warranted.(Para 8)
Result : Appeal dismissed.
IMPORTANT POINT
Repeatedly taking vehicle for rectifying defects and failing to rectify defects would be sufficient proof that there were manufacturing defects in vehicle.
Mr. Justice N.K. Jain, President—Both these appeals No. 266/2005 by complainant-allottee and No. 570/2005 by opposite party the M.P. Housing Board arise from the order dated 31.1.2005 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhopal in Case No. 540/2004 directing the opposite party Board to refund Rs. 4,35,000 with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of last deposit i.e., 12.5.2001.
2. The grievance of the complainant is that the interest ought to be allowed from the dates of various deposits. The opposite party-Board challenges the very order allowing interest and claims that the Board is entitled to deduct 10% of the said amount.
3. The amount in question was deposited against allotment of a house which as per opposite party’s own showing was to be constructed and delivered to the complainant by June 2001. However, the house could be ready for delivery only in April 2004. Initially the price of the house was fixed at Rs. 6,50,000 but ultimately escalated price Rs. 7,62,482 was demanded from the complainant. It was a clear case of deficiency per se on the part of the opposite party Board firstly on account of inordinate delay in completion of construction and secondly in the matter of undue escalation in price of the house (i.e., much more than 10%). Delay was rather inordinate being more than three years. Under these circumstances, the complainant was fully justified in refusing to take such delayed delivery of the house on escalated price. She was certainly entitled to seek refund of her entire money with interest and there is no question of any deduction being made by the Housing Board. The Forum below in our opinion was right in directing the opposite party Board to refund the amount with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of last deposit. The rate of interest allowed cannot be also said to be excessive inasmuch as the complainant had raise loan from the bank for deposit of the said amount with the opposite party Board.
4. For what we have said above both the appeals fail and are dismissed but with no order as to costs. The amount deposited by the Board under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act be paid to the complainant. The balance amount with interest should be paid by the board within two months of the receipt of copy of this order failing which the interest shall be payable on the said amount @ 15% p.a.
Appeals dismissed.
–
