V RAMACHARY Vs. J JEEVAN RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals are filed against the judgment and order dated 18.1.2001 passed by the State Commission, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 19/96. Complaint was filed by Shri. Sharvan Kumar against the builder Ansal Housing & Constructions Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Ansal Housing). By the impugned judgment the State Commission has directed the builder to refund the entire amount deposited by the complainant towards the price of flats booked by him together with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of deposits till actual payment.

(2.) IN First Appeal No. 30 of 2001 it has been contended by the complainant that he is entitled to cover the amount deposited by it with interest @ 24% as some part would be towards compensation or harassment and some part would be for interest on the amount deposited by him. Against the order passed by the State Commission, builder has preferred First Appeal No. 56/01. Considering that the builder should not be directed to refund the amount deposited by the opposite party. On behalf of the Ansal Housing, learned Counsel pointed out that the project was completed in August, 1996 and company had offered delivery of possession of flat to the respective allottees including the complainant. However, instead of taking over the possession of the flats, complainant has filed the complaint raising false and frivolous allegation that there was delay in handing over the flats. It is also pointed out that the State Commission arrived at the conclusion that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Ansal Housing, however, erroneously ordered that Ansal Housing should refund entire amount deposited by the complainant with 12% interest.

(3.) CONSIDERING the fact that Ansal Housing has already allotted flats to the complainant, but the complainant has not accepted the same, in our view the impugned order passed by the State Commission directing the Ansal Housing to refund the amount with 12% interest from the date of depositing the instalment does not call for any interference. In the written submissions filed on 28.4.2004 it has been pointed out that towards the purchase of the flats complainant has deposited Rs. 4,74,050/- and Rs. 2,99,450/- was for the second flat that means total amount was deposited Rs. 7,73,500/-. For the flat for which the entire amount was deposited, Ansal Housing would pay Rs. 4 lacs as interest in order to settle the matter amicably. It appears that complainant was not prepared to accept the said offer. In view of the aforesaid facts, there is no substance in the contention of the learned Counsel for the complainant that Ansal Housing is required to refund the amount with interest @ 24% from the date of deposits. We do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the State Commission. In the result, both appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.