BARID B. BHATTACHARYA Vs. DCM LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved and uncondensed by the order dated 11.8.2011 passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in appeal No. 32 / 2009, the original complainant has filed the present petition purportedly under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. We have heard the Counsel for the petitioner/complainant but had not the advantage of hearing the say of the respondents as they remained unrepresented on record on the date of hearing despite due service of notice through registered post as far back as in December 2011. One Mr. Dheeraj Trikha, Advocate is, however, present and states that he is a proxy Counsel for one Mr. Mohit Gupta, who is the Counsel for the respondent DCM Limited. When we enquired from him and from the Court Master whether the power of attorney (Vakalatnama) of Mr. Mohit Gupta has been filed on record, they confirmed that no power of attorney (Vakalatnama) of Mr. Mohit Gupta, Advocate has been filed on record till date. We, therefore, refuse to recognize the presence of proxy Counsel for Mr. Mohit Gupta, who is not representing the respondents in the proceedings. In these circumstances, we have no option except to decide this matter on the submissions made by the Counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) The consumer dispute raised in the complaint was in regard to the non-refund of a sum of Rs. 5,10,300 deposited by the complainant with the respondent company against allotment of a certain space in a project floated by the respondents, which could never take off. The complainant prayed for refund of the deposited money along with compensation and interest. The District Forum on consideration of the matter, directed the respondent to refund entire deposited amount, i.e., Rs. 5,10,300 along with compensation of Rs. 2 lakh besides litigation expenses of Rs. 30,000 to the petitioner. Not contented with the said order, the complainant approached the State Commission by means of an appeal and the State Commission modified the order passed by the District Forum as under:

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner/ complainant submitted that the State Commission has gravely erred firstly in awarding interest @ 6% p.a. and then restricting the same with effect from the date of filing of the complaint and not awarding the interest from the date of the deposit of the amount. In support of her contention, she invited reference to a communication dated 15.4,1996 which was issued by respondent No. 4 to the petitioner in which besides explaining the circumstances which led to the delay in commencing/ completing the project, the respondent offered to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the deposited amount for the period for which the project and possession of the delivery was delayed. Counsel submits that in view of the stipulation in the said letter and the fact that the project was not only delayed beyond unreasonable limit but could not take off, the complainant was entitled to interest at least @ 12% p.a. and that too with effect from the date of deposit of the amount. We find force in this contention. Having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances and in particular, that the complainant was deprived of its hard-earned money for a considerable period which money must have been gainfully utilized by the respondents and going by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh, 2004 5 SCC 65, decided on 17.3.2004, we have no manner of doubt that the complainant was entitled to interest at least @ 12% p.a. with effect from the date of the deposit of the amount besides the complainant has suffered harassment at the ends of respondents for which he further needs to be compensated. In our view, an award of a sum of Rs. 1 lakh in addition to the interest to the complainant will meet the ends of justice.