LAW POINT
Ready Reckoner – Compensation payable to the complainant should not be calculated on the basis of the current ready reckoner price of the flat.

ORDER (ORAL)

Final arguments heard on behalf of both the parties.

2. Vide this appeal, the appellants, who were the opposite parties before the State Commission, have challenged the order dated 06.12.2017 of the State Commission in C.C. No. 17 of 2014.

3. The brief admitted facts of the case are that the respondent, hereinafter be referred as complainant, had booked a flat in the project “Unique Green Acres” of the appellants in Jodhpur. On the basis of the map and documents of the project shown to the complainant, the complainant agreed to buy a flat on 12th Floor of the said project. The consideration amount of the flat was Rs.27,64,500/-. Out of this sum, on various dates, the complainant had paid a sum total of Rs.6,91,459/. Various receipts towards this payment had also been issued by the appellants. Flat No. F-1207 at the 12th Floor was allotted to the complainant. In the month of January, 2014, the complainant learnt that the appellant did not have approval to construct the 12th Floor of the project “Unique Green Acres” and that the appellants had mislead her into this project and thereby adopted unfair trade practices and had committed an act of cheating. Also there was no possibility of getting the approval to build the 12th floor of the said project. She had alleged that she was shown false and fabricated documents and false statement and promises were made to her. Thereafter the complaint was filed before the State Commission in which the complainant had prayed for the refund of the entire money. Besides that the complainant had also claimed a sum of Rs.16,66,610/- on the basis of current market rate. She also claimed Rs.20 lakhs towards mental agony and pain and Rs.25,000/- towards litigation cost and claimed interest @ 24%. Notice to this complaint was when sent to the appellants, they filed their written version. In the written version they had denied all the contentions except the fact that the complainant was their allottee and complainant had paid a sum of Rs.6,91,459/- on various dates. Parties lead their evidence before the State Commission and the State Commission after hearing the arguments on behalf of the parties and perusing the entire evidence on record, passed the following order:—

ORDER

In this situation the complaint of the complainant is accepted and the direction given to the respondents to make payment of Rs.6,91,459/- to the complainant alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the dates of deposition of said amount which was given for flat.

The respondent is directed to disburse the flat difference amount of Rs.16,66,610/- along with interest @ 9% to the complainant from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 09 May 2014.

The false commitment is made to the senior citizen to give flat and due to which the complainant has suffered mental agony for which the compensation amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.25,000/- also be directed to pay, interest @ 9% per annum shall be given if the amount not given within two months.

4. This order is impugned by the appellants before us on several counts in the appeal. However during the course of arguments learned counsel for the appellants, on instructions, confined his arguments on the relief relating to the payment of Rs.16,66,610/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. to the complainant, which the complainant had claimed as a difference of amount of flat as per market rate, and also the grant of compensation of Rs.5 lakhs towards mental agony.

5. We have heard the arguments of both the parties and have perused the record. In order to substantiate the arguments that the difference of the market rate value cannot be awarded by the Commission under Consumer Protection Act (C.P. Act) and therefore grant of Rs.16,66,610/- was an illegal order, the learned counsel for the appellants has relief on two orders of this Commission in the case of M/s Siraj Developers & Anr. Vs. Yasmin Razak Vanoo in F.A. No. 124 of 2015 decided on 15.11.2017 and M/s Lakadwala Develo