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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more