NCDRC

NCDRC

FA/144/2011

EMAAR MGF LAND LIMITED - Complainant(s)

Versus

MR. YASH PAUL SINGLA - Opp.Party(s)

CHAMBER OF JAITLEY & BAKSHI,

19 Sep 2013

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI

FIRST APPEAL NO. 143 OF 2011

(Against the Order dated 22/02/2011 in Complaint No. 54/2010 of the State Commission Chandigarh)

1. EMAAR MGF LAND LIMITED & ANR. SCO 120-122, Sector-17-C Chandigarh Chandigarh 2. General Manager (Customer Services ) Emaar MGF Land Limited SCO120-122, Sector -17c Chandigarh Chandigarh	...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. MS. SURESH LATA SINGLA W/o Shri Yash Paul Singh R/o: ?H.No. 209, Sector-4, Panchkula Haryana	...........Respondent(s)

FIRST APPEAL NO. 144 OF 2011

(Against the Order dated 22/02/2011 in Complaint No. 55/2010 of the State Commission Chandigarh)

1. EMAAR MGF LAND LIMITED SCO 120-122, Sector-17-C, Chandigarh Chandigarh 2. General Manager (Customer Services) Emaar MGF LAnd Limited , SCO-120-122,Sector-17-C Chandigarh Chandigarh	...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. MR. YASH PAUL SINGLA S/o Late Shri .L.N. Singhla R/o: H.No.209,Sector-4, Panchkula Haryana	...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
	HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN, PRESIDENT
	HON'BLE MRS. VINEETA RAI, MEMBER
	HON'BLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER

For the Appellant :

Mr. Sudhir Makkar, Advocate In both cases Mr. Diuij Kumar, Advocate Ms. Sonali Jaitley, Advocate Mr. Harsimrat Bandhawa, Advocate

For the Respondent :

Mr. R.S.Badhran, Advocate

Dated : 19 Sep 2013

ORDER

The State Commission has disposed of the two complaints by the common order impugned. This common order shall dispose of the above-captioned two First Appeals as the facts and the point of law involved is the same. Facts are being taken from First Appeal No.143/2011.   Complainant/Respondent deposited a total sum of Rs.20,70,000/- with the Appellant- Developer for the allotment of a plot of 300 sq. yards in Sector 105, Mohali. Appellant vide letter dated 07.09.2009 allotted the plot in Sector 109, Mohali instead of Sector 105. Respondent requested the Appellant to allot the plot in Sector 105, which was not agreed to. Respondent filed a complaint before the State Commission seeking refund of the amount along with interest @ 24%. State Commission allowed the complaint and directed the Appellant to refund the deposited amount along with interest @ 15% per annum, which was being charged from its customers.   Counsel for the Appellant does not press the appeals on merit. However, he submits that the interest @15% per annum on the principal amount is on the higher side Appellant has already deposited 75% of the awarded amount with the State Commission in terms of the order passed by this Commission. He has no objection if the amount deposited is released to the Respondent.    We find substance in the contention of counsel for the Appellant that the interest @ 15% per annum is on the higher side. Normally in such case this Commission as well the State Commission awards interest from 9% to 12% per annum.   In view of the above facts, we reduce the interest from 15% to 12% per annum. Subject to this modification, the appeals are dismissed as not pressed. State Commission is directed to release the deposited amount to the Respondent. Counsel for the Appellant states that the balance amount shall be disbursed to the Respondent within two months after calculating the amount to be paid with reduced interest @ 12% per annum. In case the Appellant fails to pay the amount to the Respondent within the stipulated time, the Appellant shall become liable to pay interest @ 15% per annum.

......................J

ASHOK BHAN

PRESIDENT

......................

VINEETA RAI

MEMBER

......................

VINAY KUMAR

MEMBER