RDB LEGEND INFRASTRUCTURE Vs. MKN SRINIVASA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this Appeal, by a real estate developer, namely, RDB Legend Infrastructure (Pvt)(Ltd), and its functionaries, the Opposite Parties in the Complaint, is to the order dated 6.3.2017, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Telangana at Hyderabad (for short 'the State Commission') in Consumer Complaint No.210/2015. By the impugned order, while allowing the Complaint filed by the Respondent herein, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Appellants in not delivering the flat in question, i.e. Flat No.1614 in the project, christened as Legend GRK Harmony, within the committed time, the State Commission has directed the Appellants to refund to the Complainant a sum of Rs.24,26,250/- paid by him to the Appellants, together with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of last payment till realization; a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and costs quantified at Rs.5,000/-.

(2.) Since the factum of booking of the flat by the Complainant, vide agreement dated 13.2.2013 and his having paid a sum of Rs.24,26,250/-, which includes the amount of loan of a sum of Rs.12,50,000/- raised by him from LIC HFL, against a total sale consideration of Rs.58,81,250/-, as also the fact that the flat in question was not ready for delivery of possession by the committed date, i.e. August 2015, is not in dispute, we deem it unnecessary to state the facts in extenso. It would suffice to note that on failure on the part of the Appellants to deliver possession of the flat within the period stipulated in the Agreement dated 13.2.2013, the Complainant issued a legal notice to them, terminating the said agreement and demanding the refund of the amount deposited by him along with interest @ 24% from the date of receipt of the same till payment, besides damages caused due to escalation of costs, loss of opportunity and mental suffering to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-. Having failed to elicit any positive response to the notice from the Appellants, the Complainant filed the Complaint in which the afore-noted directions have been issued.

(3.) When on 22.8.2017, the Appeal came up for motion hearing, while issuing notice to the Complainant, on the Application seeking condonation of 480 days delay in filing the Appeal as well as in the main Appeal, confined to the award of compensation and interest, the Appellants were directed to deposit a sum of Rs.24,26,250/- along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of each deposit till 30.11.2017, within three weeks from that date, as a condition precedent for stay of operation of the remaining directions. Since it was stated on behalf of the Appellants that they were willing to settle the dispute, subject-matter of the Complaint, with the Complainant, it was directed that it will be open to the Complainant to withdraw the principal amount, to be deposited by the Appellants in terms of the said order. It appears that against the said order, the Appellants preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. While disposing of the SLP (C) No.28822/2017, the Hon’ble Court clarified that the amount, which the Appellants were directed to deposit in this Commission, shall not be withdrawn by the Complainant. However, as the Appellant had not made any deposit in terms of interim order dated 22.8.2017, the stay was vacated with a clarification that it will be open to the Complainant to pursue his remedy as may be available to him for enforcement of the order, subject-matter of the present Appeal.