Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Prem Narain,Presiding Member
Lanco Hills Technology Park Pvt. Ltd. —Appellant
Versus
Tumu Kiran Praveen Choudary
& Anr. — Respondents
First Appeal No. 174 of 2014
(Against the Order dated 27/12/2013 in Complaint No. 125/2012 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
Decided on 27.8.2020
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant :Mr. Tejasu Anand , Advocate
For the Respondent:For the Respondent No.1:Mr. Sumanth Nookola, Advocate
For the Respondent No.2: Nemo (served)
IMPORTANT POINT
Where land is in dispute asnd under litigation refund of money deposited by complainant held justified.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 19 and 14 – Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Sections 41 and 39 – Allotment of flat – Deficiency in service – Refund of money – Scope – Respondent No. 1 entered into tripartite agreement – Rs. 57,36,360/disbursed by appellant-company – Since land became disputed complainant decided to withdraw amount deposited – State Commission directed to pay Rs. 57,36.358 towards repayment of loan as availed by respondent No. 1 from respondent No. 2 with an interest @ 11% p.a. and also directed to pay Rs. 15,06,075 with interest @ 9% p.a. – Challenge against – No body would like to invest in a project where land is in dispose and matter is in litigation – Thus, request of complainant for refund of money found justified – Deficiency in service is proved, Consumer Forum has right to order refund and to pass an order for compensation and even the penal compensation – Complainant entitled for litigation since his money got blocked and he was not responsible for litigation – However, rate of interest reduced to 5% p.a. for 9% p.a. as awarded by State Commission – Direction issued. (Paras 17 to 22)
Result: Appeal allowed partly.
ORDER
Prem Narain,Presiding Member—This appeal has been filed by the appellant Lanco Hills Technology Park (P) Limited challenging the order dated 27th December 2013 passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad (in short the ‘State Commission’) in consumer complaint No. 125 of 2012.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent no.1, after being satisfied with the proposed project of the appellant company agreed to purchase a flat bearing no.1802, on the 18th floor, tower 14 LH, admeasuring 1900 sq.ft. in the said project of the appellant, vide provisional allotment application dated 13.07.2007. On 20.11.2007, the respondent no.1 signed the agreement for sale of above mentioned flat for a total consideration of Rs.1,00,40,000/- (rupees one crore forty thousand only). The respondent no.1 and appellant mutually agreed to allot another apartment being flat no.1703, tower no.10 LH to the respondent No.1 in place of previously allotted flat bearing no.1802, on the 18th floor, tower 14 LH and the appellant thereafter issued a provisional allotment letter to the respondent no.1 on 17.05.2008 for the above flat. On 24.07.2008, the appellant and the respondent No.1 thereafter, through his GPA holder Mr. Tumu Veerabhadra Rao, entered into agreements for the sale of land and built-up area for flat bearing no.1703 on 17th floor, in tower no.10LH admeasuring 1904 sq. ft. for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,00,03,360/-. The appellant and the respondent entered into a tripartite agreement on the same date i.e. 24.07.2008, according to which, respondent no.2 was to disburse the amount/instalment directly to the appellant company. The respondent no.2 thereafter on various dates in 2008-2009, disbursed to the appellant company a total amount of Rs.57,36,360/- (rupees fifty seven lacs thirty six thousand three hundred and sixty only). On 01.06.2011, respondent no.2 requested the appellant to pay the amounts disbursed under the sanctioned loan. On 13.06.2011, the appellant thereafter, received a letter whereby the respondent no.1 for the first time raised a demand for refund of the amount paid towards 15% of the consideration along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of receipt of amount till the date of settlement as also refund the entire amount paid by respondent no.1 to the respondent no.2 and the amount released by the respondent no.2 pursuant to the sanction of the home loan to the appellant. On 15.10.2012, the respondent no.1 filed a consumer complaint bearing CC No.125/2012 before the State Commission alleging deficient services on the part of appellant company and claiming refund of the amount paid by respondent no.1 and 2 along with interest and cost. The State Commission vide its order dated 27.12.2014, has allowed the complaint and has directed the appellant to:
(a) Pay an amount of Rs.15,06,075/- with interest @9% p.a. from the date of respective payments made by respondent no.1 to the appellant till the date of realization; and
(b) pay an amount of Rs.57,36,358/- towards repayment of loan (availed by the respondent no.1) received from the respondent no.2 bank herein along with an interest @11% p.a. from the respective date of payments by the bank to the appellant and penal interest, if any, till the date of payment.
3. Hence the present appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as respondent No.1/ the complainant. None appeared on behalf of the respondent No.2 Indian Bank despite service of notice.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant stated that the State Commission failed to appreciate that the delay in construction and the handing over of the possession of the flat bearing no.1703 on the 17th floor, in tower 10LH was on account of force majeure events namely litigation and stay orders by courts, which were beyond the reasonable control of the appellant and which events admittedly affected the development of the project.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant
