Order: (Smt. M. Shreesha, Incharge President)
Aggrieved by the order in CC 57/2012 on the file of District Forum-I, Hyderabad, the complainant preferred this appeal.
The brief facts as stated in the complaint are that the complainant joined as a member in the scheme floated by the opposite party for allotment of 200 sq. yds. and paid Rs.40,000/- on 21-5-98 and 27-5-1998 respectively as initial deposit and was issued a passbook No.276 and thereafter the complainant made the payments as per the scheme. The opposite parties sent letters on 26-9-1998, 30-12-1998, 22-6-99 and 31-12-1999 whenever there was any lapse in the payment of instalment. The complainant submits that he always responded to these letters and paid the instalments regularly and totally paid Rs.2,40,000/- by 25-6-2006 but the plot was not registered in his name. The complainant submits that as per point 4(e) of the terms and conditions, the opposite party should execute the sale agreement after making payment of Rs.1,00,000/-, but they did not do so. The complainant also addressed letters on 9-2-2008 and 8-9-2008 to the opposite parties but did not receive any response. The complainant also got issued a notice on 13-10-2011 but still there was no response. Hence the complaint seeking refund of the money paid, together with interest at 12% p.a., Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation and costs.
Opposite parties filed their written version stating that clause 4(e) will not be applicable to the complainant as he joined as a member as per clause 4 (d) and admitted that the complainant had paid Rs.2,40,000/- by 25-6-2006 out of the basic plot cost of Rs.2,60,000/- apart from development charges and other registration charges. Opposite party admits that they had some difficulty in developing the said venture due to pending court cases and also gave details of the O.S. numbers in their written version. They deny that they did not respond to the legal notice and instead submit that they were always responding to the complainants communication and submit that there is no deficiency in service on their behalf.
The District Forum based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A11 and B1 to B3 and the pleadings put forward, allowed the complaint directing opposite parties 1 and 2 to jointly and severally pay Rs.2,40,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from 25-6-2006 till realization to the complainant and the opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- towards costs.
It is the appellant/complainants case that interest awarded should have been 12% p.a. as the present market value of the site is very high and moreover the interest ought to have been awarded from 1998 as the amounts have been deposited from 1998 onwards. The party in person was present and also contended that compensation of Rs.10,000/- was minimal and sought for enhancement of the compensation. Â Â Â Â The learned counsel for the respondent/opposite party contended that interest cannot be awarded from 1998 onwards but only from the date of last deposit. The opposite party did not choose to prefer any appeal. We rely on the judgement of the apex court in 2005 (9) SCC 464 in HARAYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. SHAKUNTALA DEVI and 2004 SC 4123.In fact the Supreme Court in the case of Brij Pal Sharma Vs. Ghaziabad Development Authority reported in III (2005) CPJ 43 (SC) opined that grant of interest @ 18% p.a., by way of damages and compensation is justified. Their lordship referring to an earlier decision in Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Balbir Singh reported in II (2004) CPJ 12 held by stating that â in our view, irrespective of whether there was genuine reason to cancel or not, the money must be returned with interest at the rate of 18%. We say so because it is clear that even if the body has not already floated another scheme on the same land it is clear that the body is going to derive great profit from the land and therefore compensating the allottee with interest @ 18% p.a. is just and fair.â Therefore granting of interest @ 18% p.a. was up held.
Keeping in view the aforementioned judgement, we see it a fit case to award 12% ( as prayed for in the complaint) per annum from 25-6-2006 which is the last date of payment till realization and we also to deem it a fit case to increase the compensation from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.25,000/- while confirming the rest of the order of the District Forum. The complainants prayer to award interest from 1998 is being disallowed as admittedly the complainant paid the amount of Rs.2,40,000/- in instalments from 1998 till 25-6-2006 which is the last date of payment and it is not his case that the entire amount was paid in 1998 itself and the opposite party was enjoying that amount from then.
In the result this appeal is allowed in part and the order of the District Forum is modified by enhancing the interest from 9% p.a. to 12% p.a. from 25-6-2006 which is the last date of payment till realization and we also increase the compensation from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.25,000/- while confirming the rest of the order of the District Forum. Time for compliance four weeks.