Jagannathi Devi (Dead) Thru Lakhan Lal Gupta Vs Lucknow Development Authority (NCDRC Delhi)
Conclusion: In present facts of the case, the NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI (NCDRC) held that the interest shall be given from the respective dates of deposit till the date of payment, by relying upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Cout wherein it was held that the interest payable on the amount deposited to be restitutionary and also compensatory, interest has to be paid from the date of the deposit of the amounts.
Facts: The present First Appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”) against the Order dated 01.09.2021 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.P. Lucknow.
Brief facts of the Case are that in the year 1990 the Opposite Party notified a housing scheme. The complainant secured her registration for an allotment of MIG built up house by depositing the prescribed registration amount of Rs.15,000/- on 22.08.1990. Accordingly, an MIG house under Self Financing Scheme at Kanpur Road (Sector H) on 30.07.1991 was allotted to the complainant. The entire estimated cost of the said house amounting to Rs.340,000/- (including Rs.15,000/- registration money) was deposited by 16.01.1993. After depositing complete dues, the complainant visited the site to inspect the condition of said allotted house. On inspection the complainant found certain defects.
On 04.04.1993 the complainant lodged a strong protest with the OP and requested to change the allotted house with a different house or return the deposited amount along with due interest. For six years the OP kept the matter in cold storage in spite of several representations. Neither the OP changed the said defective house nor refunded the deposited amount with due interest to the complainant. After such harassment, the complainant on 20.02.1999 met the Vice-Chairman of the OP Mr. Balvinder Singh and again requested either to allot any other house at the same cost or to refund her deposited amount with interest. The Vice-Chairman of the OP directed for inspection.
In spite of the orders of Vice-Chairman of LDA nothing was done. Being left with no option, the complainant preferred a complaint against the OP on the ground of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in allotment of the said house and refund of deposit amounting to Rs.3,40,000/-. The State Commission observed that she was not entitled to any compensation in view of the fact that she has been granted interest also on her deposits. Therefore, she has been fully compensated in terms of interest. The complaint is misconceived, devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
The learned Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant has submitted that the learned State Commission has erred in awarding the rate of interest @ 10% per annum from 24.02.1999 till the date of actual refund and it should be from the date of actual deposits.
The National Commission observed that it is an admitted position that the Appellant paid an amount of Rs.3,40,000/- as per the schedule. She had inspected the property in dispute and found the walls to be damp; dampness was oozing out of foundations; plaster peeled off at placers; the walls bore cracks; and the house was below the promised standards. She complained immediately and followed up at all possible levels. The OP considered that she could not have complained about the house in question without residing in it. However, due to her persisting grievances, the OP decided to refund the amount she had deposited with interest @ 6% per annum as a special case, based on the order of the Vice-Chairman LDA. Thus, the grievances of the Appellant as regards the services provided by the OP are genuine to certain extent. At the same time, no ground is made out for enhancement of the compensation that has been is ordered by the learned State Commission vide impugned Order dated 01.09.2021.
Further, it was observed that as regards the rate of interest applicable and the scope for payment of compensation in such matters, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sushma Ashok Shiroor, in Civil Appeal No.6044 of 2019 decided on 7.4.2022 has held that:-
“We are of the opinion that for the interest payable on the amount deposited to be restitutionary and also compensatory, interest has to be paid from the date of the deposit of the amounts. The Commission in the Order impugned has granted interest from the date of last deposit. We find that this does not amount to restitution. Following the decision in DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DS Dhanda and in modification of the direction issued by the Commission, we direct that the interest on the refund shall be payable from the dates of deposit. Therefore, the Appeal filed by purchaser deserves to be partly allowed. The interest shall be payable from the dates of such deposits.
At the same time, we are of the opinion that the interest of 9% granted by the Commission is fair and just.”
In view of the above, it was held that the Respondent/Opposite Party shall refund the amount of Rs.3,40,000/- to the Appellant/Complainant, 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.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
1. The present First Appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”) against the Order dated 01.09.2021 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.P. Lucknow (hereinafter referred as “the State Commission”), in Consumer Complaint No.131 of 2000 filed by the Appellant/ Complainant wherein the State Commission partially allowed the complaint and directed the Respondent/Opposite Party to pay Rs.3,40,000/- with interest @ 10% from 24.02.1999 till the date of actual refund. The Opposite Party is also directed to pay Rs.50,000/- towards mental harassment and Rs.20,000/- towards cost of the suit. The entire said amount shall be paid within 30 days from the date of judgment, failing which the rate of interest shall be 12% per annum.
2. The delay of 55 days in filing the present Appeal has been dealt with vide Order dated 16.03.2023 passed by this Commission and it was treated to have been filed within limitation.
3. Brief facts of the Case are that in the year 1990 the Opposite Party notified a housing scheme in the name and style of “Kanpur Road Yojna Ke Antargat Sector H me Bhawnon Ke Panjikaran Hetu”. The complainant secured her registration for an allotment of MIG built up house by depositing the prescribed registration amount of Rs.15,000/- on 22.08.1990. Accordingly, an MIG house under Self Financing Scheme at Kanpur Road (Sector H) on 30.07.1991 was allotted to the complainant. On 18.09.1991, the OP had issued a formal allotment letter of MIG house number 3/658, in Kanpur Road Scheme (Sector-H) under the Self Financing Mode of Payment, at an estimated cost of Rs.340,000/-. Vide the said allotment letter dated 18.09.1991, the complainant was required to deposit five quarterly instalments of Rs.61,000/- each latest by 15.01.1993.
3. In compliance with the allotment intimation of 30.07.1991 and allotment letter dated 18.09.1991, the complainant deposited the following amounts:-
