ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES LTD Vs. MADHAV J DEWOOLKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case relates to an appeal filed by the appellant Company, A.C.C. Ltd. against the order passed by the State Commission in Case No. 37/1992 allowing the complaint of the respondent/complainant.

(2.) BRIEFLY put, the facts are that the respondent/complainant was an employee of A.C.C., who superannuated on 21.8.1998 after seeking voluntary retirement. Under a housing scheme floated by the appellant Company, the respondent also applied for a flat on 22.1.1990 and got a provisional allotment for the same on 23.3.1990. It is also not disputed that the respondent deposited, in all, Rs. 2,96,112/- between 24th January and 24th December, 1990 towards the cost of the flat with a final cost of Rs. 4,93,520/-. It is also not disputed that the sanction for the scheme was withdrawn by the State Government of Maharashtra on 21st January, 1991, but on account of the efforts made by the appellant Company the scheme was resanctioned/restored on 12th February, 1992. After the revival of the scheme, a Cooperative Society was formed of which the respondent was not offered the membership being not an active employee at that time. Flats were allotted to the members as also to some retired employees but not to the respondent. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant Company, respondent filed a complaint before the State Commission, who after hearing both the parties and perusing the material on record, accepted deficiency of service on the part of the appellant and directed the appellant to allot the flat originally earmarked for him, if that was not possible then to refund the deposited amount of Rs. 2,96,112/- along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of payment till realisation as also pay an amount of Rs. 2,96,112/- towards compensation and costs of Rs. 1,000/-. It is against this order the appellant Company has filed this appeal before us.

(3.) AFTER hearing the arguments, we find that there is no dispute in the basic facts of the case. In spite of raising several grounds challenging the order of the State Commission, the appellant offered yet again to (they had done this before the State Commission as well) refund the amount deposited by the respondent with interest; the only issue boils down for our consideration relates to the compensation granted by the State Commission. It is no doubt found, that keeping in view the facts and circumstances-very ably outlined in the order of the State Commission, we agree with the finding of the State Commission that there has been deficiency on the part of the appellant by not allotting a flat to the respondent before us. It is also true that Flat No. 401, presumably allotted to the respondent is not available for allotment to him. It was also admitted before us that the respondent is not without a shelter, having purchased a flat earlier after taking loan from his employer i.e., the appellant Company. We are in agreement with the State Commission's order directing refund of the deposited amount with interest and costs. However, we find ourselves unable to agree with the grant of compensation equal to the amount deposited by the respondent. Besides the fact, that this forms part of the specific prayer of the respondent in his complaint before the State Commission, no reason, details or any explanation are given to substantiate grant of this amount of compensation. In our view award of interest at a rate higher than the norm, now granted, be deemed to be a compensation enough to preclude any other award of compensation. Only to this extent the Order of the State Commission is modified. The total amount of principal plus simple interest @ 18% p.a. upto 26.9.1995 thus payable shall be reduced by Rs. 4,00,000/- already paid to the respondent in pursuance of our interim order dated 26th September, 1995. Simple interest @ 18% p.a. thereafter shall be payable on the remainder amount from 26th September, 1995 to the date of payment. Appeal is partly allowed. However, costs of Rs. 10,000/- shall be payable by the appellant over and above the amounts awarded by the State Commission.