Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
AVM J. Rajendra, AVSM VSM (Retd.), Presiding Member
M/s. Anant Raj Limited – Petitioner
versus
Happy Yadav – Respondent
Revision Petition No.1112 of 2020
(Against the Order dated 12/02/2020 in Appeal No. 111/2020 of the State Commission Rajasthan)
Decided on 9.5.2024

Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Vashishtha Parashar, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. L.N. Rao and Mr. S.R. Malik, Advocates

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) National Commission – Powers of the National Commission are very limited.
(2) Revisional Jurisdiction – In exercising of revisional jurisdiction the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission which are on appreciation of evidence on record.

Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(b) [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 58(1)(b)] – Services – Allotment of Flat/Plot – Delayed Possession – Concurrent findings of fact – Interference by national Commission – As per Section 21(b) the National Commission shall have jurisdiction to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Thus, the powers of the National Commission are very limited. Only in a case where it is found that the State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested illegally or with material irregularity, the National Commission would be justified in exercising the revisional jurisdiction. In exercising of revisional jurisdiction the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission which are on appreciation of evidence on record – Petitioner/Opposite Party shall refund Rs.6,11,888/- to the Complainant/Respondent, along with simple interest @ 9% per annum from the respective dates of deposit till the date of payment, within a period of one month from the date of this order. [Paras 10 to 14].
Result: Petition disposed off.

ORDER

This Revision Petition No.1112 of 2020 challenges the impugned order of Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (‘the State Commission’) dated 12.02.2020. Vide this order, the State Commission dismissed the First Appeal No. 111/2020 and affirmed the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alwar (‘the District Forum’) dated 10.12.2019.

2. Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that the Petitioner/OP launched a residential scheme in the year 2012 namely ASHREY at Neemrana Alwar, Rajasthan. The Complainant submitted his application with the Petitioner/OP for booking Flat No. E-328 for a total sale consideration of Rs.8,89,769/- and deposited Rs.81,500/- on 09.02.2012. Thereafter, on 19.04.2012 he deposited Rs.85,697/-, on 31.07.2012 a sum of Rs.50,000/-, Rs.50,000/-, Rs.50,000/-, on 28.08.2012, a sum of Rs.18,038, on 06.12.2012, a sum of Rs.50,000/-, Rs.50,000/-, on 14.12.2012, a sum of Rs.8,616/- and on 20.05.2014, a sum of Rs.1,68,037/- were deposited. Thus, he paid a total of Rs.6,11,888/-. The Petitioner/OP was to deliver possession of the flat within three years from the date of booking. However, the OP failed to do so. Being aggrieved, he filed a Complaint before the District Forum for refund along with interest and compensation.

3. In reply, OP has contended that the Complainant had booked the flat in the year 2012 and the construction progressed as per time fixed. Rather, the complainant had not paid the balance amount. On 13.06.2016, he forwarded an application to OP for allotment of another flat in Block C-316/235 in place of the aforesaid flat. But, he did not deposit the original documents and by concealing these facts, he filed the present complaint. There is no deficiency in service that has been committed by the OP towards the complainant.

4. The learned District Forum vide order dated 10.12.2019 allowed the complaint and directed the Petitioner/Opposite Party as under:

“Therefore, the present complaint filed by the complainant Happy Yadav under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is accepted and the respondents are directed to refund the amount of Rs.6,11,888/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Eleven Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty-Eight only) as deposited by the complainant against the aforesaid house.

Respondents are directed to pay to the complainant the interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum on the aforesaid amount of Rs.4,43,851/- from 14.12.2012 and on the balance amount of Rs.1,68,037/- from 20.05.2014, till the date of realization.

Respondents are further directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards physical and mental agony to the complainant and Rs.5,000/- as costs of the complainant, thereby total sum of Rs.55,000/- (Rupees Fifty-Five Thousand only) to the complainant. The order be complied with within a period of one month.” (Extracted from translated copy)

5. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the Petitioner/OP filed an Appeal before the State Commission. The learned State Commission, vide order dated 12.02.2020 dismissed the same and affirmed the order of the District Forum with following observation:

“Heard the counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment.

There is no dispute about the fact that flat was booked in 2012 but within three years possession of the flat has not been handed over to the respondent. As per contention of the appellant himself completion certificate was obtained in February 2017 and even the occupation certificate was received in February 2018. Hence, the Forum below has rightly held that appellants are guilty of delay and rightly ordered for refund of the money alongwith interest and compensation.

This is unfortunate state of affairs that counsel for the appellant has submitted the judgment passed by the District Consumer Forum, Rewari before the State Commission where the judgment passed by another District Consumer Forum has no relevance.

In view of the above, there is no