ADITYA MUKHERJEE Vs. PAMPA BANIK & 2 ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order dated 10-08-2016 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') by which the complaint preferred by the Respondent No.1 has been allowed and certain directions have been passed which are reproduced below:

(2.) The learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the flat cannot be constructed for the dispute amongst the partners of the firm namely Mission Habitat and, therefore, only the amount deposited by the Respondent No.1 along with reasonable interest can be refunded. He invited our attention to the Memorandum of Understanding entered into between the Appellant and the Respondent No.1 on 30-08-2012 wherein the parties had agreed for settling the matter on lumpsum payment of Rs.22,42,746/- in installments latest by 30-06-2013.

(3.) According to the Appellant a sum of Rs.4,48,550/- has been paid by cheque and bank draft on 22-09-2012 and 14-12-2012 which has been accepted and encashed by the Respondent No.1. This position has not been disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1. The balance amount which remains payable after the payment of Rs.4,48,550/- is Rs.17,94,196/-. The State Commission has directed payment of interest @12% p.a. from the date of deposit till the date of payment.