NIZAM ENGINEERS Vs. AKHIL BHARATIYA GRAHAK PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Appeal is directed against the Order of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra State, by which the opposite party No. 1 was directed to refund to the complainant Rs. 65.000/ - together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of payment of respective amount till realisation. It further directed the opposite party No. 1 to render the account of Rs. 90,000/ - to the complainant within 30 days from the receipt of the Order and return the unspent amount to the complainant.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this Appeal are that the complainant made a complaint against the opposite parties alleging deficiencies in their services. It was alleged that the complainant had by an agreement dated the 7th January, 1988 booked a flat with the opposite party No. 1, M/s. Nizam Engineers, for a consideration of Rs. 2,38,000/ -. By another agreement dated 26th January, 1988 the complainant purchased the parking slot in the premises of the flat in question. The case as disclosed by the complainant was that he had made negotiations in the parking slot through 2nd opposite party, Mr. Azhar Hussain. It was alleged that upto August, 1988, he paid total amount of Rs. 2,09,500/ - towards the consideration of flat and Rs. 1,500/ - for the record. It was further stated that the complainant had paid Rs. 90,000/ - in cash to the opposite party No. 2 for the purchase of marble, granite, steel wash basin etc. who passed on three Kachha receipts for the aforesaid payment made on 5th December, 1988, 23rd December, 1988 and 1st January, 1989. It was also the case of the complainant, that under the agreement, the possession of the flat was to be given on 1st June, 1989 and in turn the complainant was to pay Rs. 30,000/ - at the time of delivery of possession. It was also alleged that despite having paid huge amount on 7th February, 1989, the opposite party had sent a threatening letter of termination of the agreement and further demanded a balance of Rs. 30,000/ - and Rs. 10,000/ - towards interest. The complainant alleged that the opposite party No. 1 insisted on the payment of these two amounts although he made excess payment of Rs. 90/000/ -. The possession was delivered on 26th January, 1990 as against the agreed date of 1st June, 1989. According to the complainant, there had been a delay of 8 months to deliver the possession.

(3.) AFTER perusing the material placed on the record and after considering the contentions of the parties, the State Commission returned the finding that the opposite party had been deficient on 2 counts: (1) for extracting more consideration than the agreed amount, and (2) for delay in handing over the possession. The complainant has been obviously put to loss because of the delay of 8 months. It was proved on the record that the complainant paid Rs. 65,000/ - an additional amount beside Rs. 90,000/ - cash payment to opposite party No. 2 and as against the agreed amount of Rs. 2,38,000/ - and Rs. 15,000/ - for the parking slot. Under these premises, the State Commission directed the opposite party No. 1 to refund to the complainant Rs. 65,000/ - together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of payment of the respective amount till realisation. The opposite party No. 1 was further directed to render account of Rs. 90,000/ - to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of the Order and return the unspent amount to the complainant.