MOHINDRA AND CO Vs. RAJENDRAS INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three revision petitions seek to challenge one and the same order dated 8th of November, 2005 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (for short State Commission), by which the State Commission held that there was no infirmity in the order passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, New Delhi (for short District Forum) insofar as the direction to refund the amount deposited by the complainant was concerned. At the same time, however, it held that interest awarded @ 18% per annum was not permissible under Sec.14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 but taking notice of the fact that the amount deposited by the complainant was lying with the opposite party/builder since 1988, it ordered the payment of a lump sum amount of Rs.1 Lakh.

(2.) Aggrieved against this modification of the award rendered in his favour by the District Forum, the complainant (M/s Mohindra and Co.) has filed Revision Petition No.3214 of 2005, praying for a direction to the opposite party/builder to refund the deposited amount of Rs.68,800/- with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of deposit till its payment. The opposite party/builder (M/s Rajendras (India) Ltd.) on the other hand seeks quashing of the order passed by the State Commission in the two other revision petitions, i. e. Revision Petitions No.426 of 2006 and 506 of 2006, filed by them.

(3.) After having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records in hand, we find that the booking of a 100 sq. ft. space no. RJT-2223 at Rajendras Jaina Tower-III by the complainant and its allotment by the opposite party/builder is not in dispute nor is there any dispute with regard to the payment of Rs.68,800/- by the complainant to the opposite party/builder between 4th of March, 1987 to 8th of April, 1988. However, the dispute arose when, on completion of premises, the opposite party/builder issued a letter to the complainant/allottee on the 3rd of August, 1990, asking him to pay the balance installments together with allied charges and other dues and take possession of the space so allotted. As per the complainant/allottee, it was only then that it came to their notice that the space allotted to them had been occupied by a third party, namely, the Himachal Cooperative Bank Ltd.