44 (NC) CONSUMER PROTECTION JUDGMENTS (Oct.

) 2024

Private Limited & Ors., IV (2020) CPJ 10 (SC)=VI IV (2024) CPJ 44 (NC)
(2020) SLT 50=(2020) 16 SCC 512 and DLF Home NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES
Developers v. Capital Green Flat Buyers REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Association, I (2021) CPJ 56 (SC)=I (2021) SLT
36=(2021) 5 SCC 537 has awarded @ 6% interest on Mr. Justice A. P. Sahi, President
the deposit of home buyers as delay compensation. ROOPAL SAGI —Appellant
Therefore, the complainants are entitled for delay
versus
compensation in the form of interest @ 6% per
annum on their deposit (excluding rebate) from D. SRINIVAS & 6 ORS.
December, 2017 to 15.3.2020. K. VENKATA RAMANA & 5 ORS.
ORDER —Respondents

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the And

complaint is partly allowed with cost of Rs.50,000. SONAL THAKRAR & ANR. —Appellants
The opposite parties are directed to remove the versus
deficiencies as pointed out in the Architect Report
dated 11.12.2023 at Serial Nos.4 to 7, furnish the SUNKESULASAMBASHIVA RAO (DIED) & 8
villa as per specifications and provide appropriate OTHERS —Respondents
width for the car parking. The opposite parties MADABHUSHI KRISHNA PRASHANTH &
shall issue a fresh statement of account crediting ORS. —Respondents
delay compensation in the forms of interest @ 6%
MADABHUSHI PRAMOD & ORS.
per annum on deposit of the complainants
(excluding rebate) from December, 2017 till —Respondents
15.3.2020. The opposite parties are entitled to K. VAMSI CHANDRA & ORS. —Respondent
charge interest @ 9% per annum on the balance
First Appeal Nos. 800, 803, 804, 805, 806, 807 of 2021
amount payable by the complainants. After against Order dated 27.1.2021 & 7.12.2020 in
adjusting the amount payable by the complainants, Complaint Nos. 50, 56, 60, 61, 62, 65/2015 of the
balance amount with cost will be paid to the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal
complainants along with statement of account. Commission—Decided on 1.7.2024.
Above directions will be complied with within a Consumer Protection Act, 1986 —
period of two months from the date of the judgment. Sections 2(1)(g), 2(1)(r), 14(1)(d), 21(a)(ii) —
After completing the paper formalities, the opposite Housing — Allotment of flat — Delay in
parties shall execute sub lease deed/ conveyance delivery of possession — Unfair trade
deed and hand over possession to the practice — Deficiency in service — Expected
complainants without any further delay. and promised date of handing over of
Complaint partly allowed. possession was 20 months from the date of
agreement — Neither possession was handed
over nor any progress was made —
Complainants have made their payments and
opposite parties were deficient in their
services — OPs were guilty of unfair trade
practice as they failed to hand over
possession of flat and there was also no
possibility in the near future of the same as
all the funds seem to have been utililzed for
some other purpose — Appellants were
rightly ordered refund to all complainants

78
Vol. IV ROOPAL SAGI v. D. SRINIVAS & 6 ORS. (NC) 45

together with interest @ 12% per annum and 4. Notices were issued to the opposite parties,
cost of Rs.20,000. [Paras 3, 9, 10, 11]
who failed to file their written version before the
Result : Appeal dismissed. State Commission within time. The right to file
Counsel for the parties: their written version was forfeited by the State
For the Appellant: Mr. S. Keshava Rao, Advocate.
Commission against which an application was
filed for setting aside the orders to proceed ex-parte.
For the Respondents (In FA/800 & 803/2021): Mr. J.
The said application was dismissed and aggrieved,
Prabhakar, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Mr.
Sarthak Gaurav, Mr. Rimmi Bhardwaj, Advocates. the appellants preferred appeals before this
Commission that were also dismissed. These facts
For the Respondents (In FA/804 To 807/2021): Mr. D.
Gopala Krishna, Mr. D.V.S. Ramalakshmi, Mr. H. are undisputed.
Anand, Advocates. 5. The complaint therefore proceeded and
ORDER has been allowed by the order dated 27.1.2021
granting refund to all the complainants in respect
Mr. Justice A. P. Sahi, President—All these of the deposits made by them together with interest
appeals though arise out of a separate orders @ 12% per annum from the date of receipt of
passed by the Telangana State Consumer Disputes deposits till realisation with cost of Rs.20,000.
Redressal Commission, Hyderabad dated
7.12.2020 and 27.1.2021, yet they raise common 6. The appeals have been filed with statutory
questions of fact and law and hence are being deposit of Rs.35,000 and upon notices being issued
disposed of finally by this Common order. the complainants/ respondents have put in
appearance through their respective counsel. Mr.
2. There are certain facts which need to be S. Keshava Rao, learned Counsel for the appellant
catalogued for the purpose of consolidating has been heard for the appellants in all the appeals,
information for a bird’s eye view of the dispute. Mr. J. Prabhakar, learned senior Counsel for the
The chart below would indicate the flat number, respondent/ complainant in FA/800/2021 and
the date of agreement and the payments made by FA/803/2021 and Mr. D. Gopala Krishna, learned
the Complainant/ Respondents: Counsel for the respondent/ complainant in other
Case No. Flat Date of Payment Made appeals.
No. Agreement
7. The appeals were admitted after condoning
FA/800/2021 139 22.11.2005 Rs.17,73,785 the delay vide order dated 11.9.2023 and the matter
FA/803/2021 540 19.6.2006 Rs.13,54,563 has been posted for hearing today. Learned
FA/804/2021 207 30.3.2013 Rs.55,65,205 Counsel for the appellants prayed that he may be
granted an adjournment but in view of the pendency
FA/805/2021 405 30.3.2013 Rs.37,77,832
of these appeals and with there being hardly any
FA/806/2021 406 30.3.2013 Rs.41,30,245 disputed facts that require any further debate, the
FA/807/2021 403 30.3.2013 Rs.37,21,830 adjournment sought is not justified. The arguments
accordingly concluded on 10.6.2024 and orders
3. In all these appeals, the expected and
were reserved.
promised date of handing over of possession was
20 months from the date of agreement. Neither the 8. The contentions raised in the appeal are
possession was handed over nor any progress that the appellants were erroneously denied the
was made and consequently all the complainants right to file the written version and keeping in view
have filed their respective complaints seeking relief the evidence on record, the liability could not be
of completion and handing over of the flats or an fastened on the appellants. No other ground has
order in the alternative directing the opposite been taken nor any error could be pointed out in the
parties to pay the value of the flat stated to be conclusions drawn by the State Commission.
Rs.50,00,000 together with monthly rentals and Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that
other ancillary reliefs. respondent no. 3, M/s. Gharonda Builders and
79
46 (NC) CONSUMER PROTECTION JUDGMENTS (Oct.) 2024

Developers had undertaken the entire IV (2024) CPJ 46 (NC)

development work through Mr. Sunil J. Sachdev, NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES
who is the managing partner for the firm and REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
hence all liabilities are of the firm and the managing
partner. The appellant Rupal Sagi, is the daughter Mr. Justice Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Presiding
of Mr. Sunil J. Sachdev, managing partner and the Member & Mr. Bharatkumar Pandya,
appellant, Ms. Sonal Thakrar is the sister of Mr. Member
Sunil J. Sachdev, managing partner and this is ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE
how they are related to each other. INSURANCE CO. LTD. —Appellant
9. The State Commission after having versus
traversed the entire facts came to the conclusion
RITU SODHI & ORS. —Respondent
that all the complainants have made their payments
and the opposite parties were deficient in their And
services and were also guilty of unfair trade practice AXIS BANK —Appellant
as they failed to handover possession of the flat
versus
and there was also no possibility in the near future
of the same as all the funds seem to have been RITU SODHI & ORS. —Respondents
utililzed for some other purpose. First Appeal Nos. 111 & 114 of 2011 against Order
10. Accordingly the State Commission dated 17.1.2011 in Complaint No. 18/2009 of
Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal
ordered refund to all the complainants together
Commission—Decided on 9.7.2024.
with interest @ 12% per annum and cost of
Rs.20,000. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 —
Sections 2(1)(g), 14(1)(d), 21(a)(ii) — Insurance
11. The appellant has been unable to offer
— Death of insured — Repudiation of claim
any explanation assailing the impugned order of
— Deficiency in service — Papers relating to
the State Commission on any ground whatsoever.
master policy has also been filed showing
In effect the appeals have absolutely no substance
name of deceased and policy No.02505PAP04
and there is no option except to confirm the order
— PAP04 means personal accident policy
of the State Commission. Accordingly, all the orders
entryNo.4 which is for self and spouse and 13
of the State Commission in the appeals are
persons has been mentioned in this master
confirmed and the appeals are accordingly
policy including deceased — In this case
dismissed as they do not raise any ground of error
since death of husband of Complainant only
of fact or of law.
occurred therefore a sum of Rs.7.5 lacs was
Appeal dismissed. payable — However, due to inadvertent error
in the written reply of OP-1, sum assured was
mentioned as Rs.15 lacs, which was an error
crept due to confusion that both husband and
wife have expired — From policy document
this is clear in which sum assured is Rs.7.5
lacs — So far as succession certificate is
concerned bank itself has filed amended
memo of parties showing that deceased was
inherited by his mother, his widow and two
sons — Insurance Company is directed to pay
Rs.7.5 lacs with interest @ 9% p.a. from the
date of filing of complaint till the date of
payment. [Paras 4, 7, 9, 10]

80