Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
V.K. Jain, Presiding Member
TDI Infratech Ltd. and Ors. —Petitioners
versus
Rajinder Singh Thakur —Respondent
Revision Petition No.809 of 2020
(Against the Order dated 08/07/2020 in Appeal No.9/2020 of the State Commission Chandigarh)
Decided on 27.11.2020
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Karanjot Singh Mainee, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Nikhil Jain, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Refund of principal amount with interest directed for failure of giving possession of allotted possession.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 2(c) : [Consumer Protection Act, 2019—Section 2(6)]—Allotment of plot—Failure to handover possession—Refund of amount paid—Scope—Allegedly allotted plot was not made available to complainant and that petitioners offered an alternative plot to him—Complainant sought refund of the amount paid—District Forum allowed the complaint and State Commission declined to interfere with—Hence this revision petition—An alternative plot was offered to the complainant thought it was not acceptable to complainant on account of its location—No evidence led by complainant to prove the actual loss suffered by him on account of failure of the petitioners to handover possession of the allotted plot to him—Petitioners directed to refund entire principal amount received in respect of plot to complainant—Alongwith compensation in the form of simple interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of each payment till the date of refund. (Para 5)
Result: Petition disposed of.
ORDER (ORAL)
V.K. Jain, Presiding Member.—One Sanjay Sirohi booked a residential plot with the petitioners for the consideration of Rs.16,25,000/- in the project, namely, TDI City, Sector-117, Mohali. Later on, the registration was transferred to one Amit Batra and who transferred it to Pritam Singh Sandhu. The allotment was acquired by Mr. Rajinder Singh Thakur- the complainant. The grievance of the complainant is that the allotted plot, i.e., Plot No.536 in Sector 117 was not made available to him by the petitioners which offered an alternative plot to the complainant. However, the location of the said plot was not acceptable to the complainant, who thereafter approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint seeking refund of the amount which had been paid to the petitioners for the plot.
2. The complaint was resisted by the petitioners on several grounds. However, transfer of the allotment in the name of the complainant as well as the offer of alternative plot was admitted in the written version.
3. The District Forum having allowed the consumer complaint, the petitioners approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 8.7.2020, the State Commission declined to interfere with the order of the District Forum which had directed refund of the principal amount to the complainant alongwith interest on that amount @ 15% p.a. The compensation quantified at Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and harassment was also awarded alongwith litigation cost of Rs.15,000/-. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission, the petitioner company is before this Commission.
4. When this revision petition came up for hearing before this Commission on 17.9.2020, no ground for interfere with the direction for refund of the principal amount was found by this Commission. Hence, a limited notice was issued to the complainant in respect of direction awarding Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and the rate at which interest was directed to be paid to him.
5. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case including the adverse economic situation created by the Pandemic Covid-19 and continuous decline in the rates of interest being paid by the banks on the deposits, I am of the view that the interest awarded by the State Commission was on the higher side. Though the complainant is entitled to compensation by way of interest but it has to be at a fair and reasonable rate. It would be pertinent to note in this regard that no evidence was led by the complainant to prove the actual loss suffered by him on account of failure of the petitioners to hand over possession of the allotted plot to him. The complainant could easily have proved the actual loss to him by leading evidence to prove the current market value of the plot situated identically to the plot allotted to him and the difference between such value and the price which the complainant had agreed to pay for the allotted plot would have been the actual loss suffered by him on account of failure of the petitioners to make the allotted plot available to him. The relevant factor in this regard is that an alternative plot was offered to the complainant though it was not acceptable to him on account of its location. In these circumstances, the revision petition is disposed of with the following directions:-
(i) The petitioners shall refund the entire principal amount received in respect of Plot No.536 to the complainant alongwith compensation in the form of simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of each payment till the date of refund.
(ii) The interest would be payable till the date on which the principal amount was actually refunded to the complainant.
(iii) The petitioner shall also pay the cost of litigation awarded by the Fora below to the complainant.
(iv) The interest which the petitioners claims to have deposited with the District Forum in terms of the order dated 17.9.2020 will be released to the
