LEELA NARASIMHAN Vs. VIJAY GRIHANIRMAN PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 04.10.2016 in Complaint Case No. 1145 of 2016 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (for short the "State Commission"), the Complainant preferred present First Appeal No. 2051 of 2017 under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"). By the impugned order, the State Commission has allowed the Complaint in part directing the Opposite Parties jointly and severally to pay to the Complainant interest by way of compensation @ 18% p.a. over Rs.37,00,000/- with effect from 16.05.2010 till 31.01.2011 both dates inclusive together with Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.10,000/- as costs.

(2.) It is the Complainant's case that there is deficiency of service against the Developer since as though an amount of Rs.37,00,000/- was paid towards sale consideration for Flat No. 601 situated at Vijaya Annex, on account of non-providing of certain amenities the Complainant cancelled his booking and sought for refund of the amount paid. It is averred that the amount was paid on 14.05.2010 towards part payment of the total sale consideration but though on 16.05.2010 itself the Complainant communicated her decision with respect to cancellation of the allotment of Flat No. 601, it was only after the filing of the Consumer Complaint on 04.10.2010 that the principle amount of Rs.37,00,000/- was refunded by the Developer to the Complainant on 31.01.2011. Despite the Complainant having requested for interest several times as the Developer had retained her amount from 14.05.2010 till 31.01.2011, there was no response. After having heard both the sides the State Commission has allowed the Complaint in part with the aforenoted directions.

(3.) It is case of the Respondents that though the Developer had offered the payment of the amount, the Complainant herself refused to come forward and accept the same. It was the Complainant's stand that since the Developer had taken the money, the Developer alone should come to her doorstep and handover the money and hence though the cheque was ready a series of communication ensued but still the Complainant did not come forward to accept the cheque.