Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Prem Narain, Presiding Member
Datta Kundlik Varghude & Anr. —Appellants
Versus
Suresh Banechand Runwal & 2 Ors. — Respondents
First Appeal No. 823 of 2016
(Against the Order dated 26/04/2016 in Complaint No. 24/2014 of the State Commission Maharashtra)
Decided on 28.8.2020
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant : In FA No. 823 of 2016
For the Appellants:Mr Arun Kumar Kaushik, Advocate
For the Respondent:For the Respondents Mr Rana Sandeep B, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Housing project since was delayed inordinately complainants held entitled to refund of amount deposited.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 19 – Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 41 – Allotment of flat – Delay in delivery of possession – Refund of amount – Scope – Complainants have booked flat for a total sale consideration of Rs. 35,51,000/- Complainants have paid Rs. 33,68,992 – Rs. 3,85,705/- also paid towards stamp duty and registration charges – Since project was inordinately delayed, the complainants were entitled to seek refund of the amount deposited – Expenditure on stamp duty and registration charges to be shared on 50:50 basis between builder and the complainants – Opposite parties directed to refund Rs. 36,41,867 to complainants with interest @ 9% p.a. as against @ Rs. 12% p.a. allowed by State Commission – And award of compensation of Rs. 1 lakh also set aside – Direction issued. (Paras 8 to 12)
Result: Appeals disposed off.
ORDER
Prem Narain, Presiding Member—The First Appeal No.823 of 2016 has been filed by the complainants against the order dated 26.04.2016 and First Appeal No.851 of 2016 has been filed by the opposite parties against the same impugned order dated 26.04.2016 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, (in short ‘the State Commission’) in Complaint Case No.CC/14/24.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainants have booked a 3BHK flat no. 304 on 3rd floor in B Tower building on 07.10.2011 being developed by the OPs as Shamit Octozone for a total consideration of Rs.35,51,000/-. The complainants took a housing loan of Rs.28,43,697/- and the same was sanctioned by Deutsche Bank vide its letter dated 27.03.2012. The complainants have deposited a sum of Rs.37,54,657/- towards the sale consideration.
3. As per clause 11 of the agreement to sell which was executed between the parties on 24.02.2012, the possession of the said flat was required to be handed over within 18 months from the date of agreement i.e. by 23.08.2013, but OPs failed to do so. The complainants sent a legal notice dated 14.10.2014 to OPs to refund a sum of Rs.41,85,878/- and intimated about the cancellation of the booking of the said flat, but OPs did not respond to the notice. Due to the deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainants filed a consumer complaint before the State Commission.
4. The State Commission vide its order dated 26.04.2016 partly allowed the complaint against OP nos. 1-3. The State Commission directed OP nos. 1-3 to refund jointly and severally the amount of Rs.37,54,697/- to the complainants with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of legal notice i.e. 14.10.2014. The State Commission also directed to pay to the complainants jointly and severally a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards mental & physical harassment and Rs.30,000/- towards the cost of litigation.
5. The complainants and the opposite parties both preferred appeals against the above impugned order.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused record. For clarity, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in the order of the State Commission. The learned counsel for the complainants stated that the State Commission has not given any cost of the complaint and even a meagre compensation of Rs.1.00 lakh has been granted. The complaint was filed for refund of Rs.41,85,878/- from the opposite parties however, the State Commission has only allowed refund of Rs.37,54,697. The amount of about Rs.4.00 lakh has been paid as interest to the bank on the home loan, but the State Commission has not ordered refund of that amount. The State Commission has refunded the paid amount along with 12% per annum interest and that too from the date of legal notice whereas the amount should have been refunded from the date of the respective deposits. The rate of interest of 12% per annum does not really compensate the complainants for the price rise in the real estate market hence, the State Commission should have ordered refund with 24% interest per annum.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite parties stated that the State Commission has not taken into consideration the documentary evidence on record which depicted the delayed payment on the part of the complainants. The State Commission has further failed to consider that the delay in completion of the construction of the project was due to specific directions from the government authorities i.e. MOEF and MPCB to stop the construction. These reasons were beyond the control of the opposite parties and they are to be considered as force majeure conditions and complainants cannot be granted any compensation for this delay. It was further argued by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that the State Commission has ordered refund of the amount paid by the complainants even though the agreement to sell is still in existence. It is all the more surprising that th
