Skip to main content

Builder liable to pay interest on booking amount even in the absence of agreement

In VIVEK KISHORCHANDRA MEHTA vs PURANIK BUILDERS PVT. LTD. & ANR., this appeal was filed by the appellant against the order of dismissal of the complaint by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra.  

The complainant alleged that an amount of Rs.40,00,000/- were paid as booking advance on 25.4.2014.  However, the complainants came to know on 22.3.2015 that there was no three BHK flat in the project though the booking was made for three BHK flat.  Accordingly, the complainants objected to issue of any allotment letter by the opposite parties and sought refund of the paid amount.  Opposite parties agreed to repay on current market price or atleast 18% p.a. interest on the paid amount.  The actual amount was refunded from August, 2015 to October, 2015.  However, no interest has been paid by the opposite parties though the money remained with opposite parties for over a year. 

The State Commission mentioned that the amount of refund was received by the complainants without any protest, and concluded that the relationship of the complainants with the opposite parties as consumer and service provider ended when the paid amount was refunded by the opposite parties to the complainants. 

The NCDRC decided that the question is even if the agreement is cancelled and one party is aggrieved by non-implication of that agreement/understanding, Consumer Protection Act allows the consumer to file complaint within a period of two years and in the present case the complaint has been filed within a period of two years.  Hence, the finding of the State Commission does not stand on a firm legal footing.  So far as the question of protest by the complainants while receiving the amount is concerned, any protest on their part would have denied them the benefit of receiving the amount of refund and the prudence at that time demanded that they should first accept the refund and later claim for interest. Hence, both the grounds on which the complaint has been dismissed by the State Commission are not sustainable.

Coming to the question of interest, the NCDRC referred to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Alok Shanker Pandey Vs. Union of India where the Apex court said that it may be mentioned that there is misconception about interest.  Interest is not a penalty or punishment at all, but it is the normal accretion on capital.  For example if A had to pay B a certain amount, say 10 years ago, but he offers that amount to him today, then he has pocketed the interest on the principal amount.  Had A paid that amount to B 10 years ago, B would have invested that amount somewhere and earned interest thereon, but instead of that A has kept that amount with himself and earned interest on it for this period.  Hence equity demands that A should not only pay back the principal amount but also the interest thereon to B. it is clear that if money has remained for some time with the opposite parties, they are liable to pay some interest on that amount.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more