ORDER

1.       This Appeal has been filed under Section 19 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the ‘Act 1986’) challenging the Order dated 08.06.2015 in C. C. No. 64 of 2015 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U. T. Chandigarh (the ‘State Commission’).

2.       Heard arguments from Mr. Aditya Narain, learned Counsel for the Appellant (the ‘Builder Co.’) and Mr. Sandeep Bhardwaj, learned Counsel for the Respondent (the ‘Complainant’).

Perused the material on record, including inter alia the impugned Order dated 08.06.2015 of the State Commission and the Memorandum of Appeal.

3.       This relates to a builder-buyer dispute.

4.       The State Commission vide its Order dated 08.06.2015 had partly accepted the Complaint.

The Award made by the State Commission vide its impugned Order dated 08.06.2015 reads as below:

33. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted, with costs, and the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally directed as under:-

(i) To refund the amount of  Rs.50,21,500/-, to the complainants, alongwith interest @ 12% per annum, from the respective dates of deposits, till realization, within 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

(ii) To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.2 lacs, for deficiency in rendering service, unfair trade practice and causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainants, within 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

(iii) To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.20,000/-, to the complainants.

(iv) In case, the payment of amounts, mentioned in Clauses (i) and (ii), is not made, within the stipulated period, then the Opposite Parties, shall be liable to pay the amount mentioned in Clause (i) with interest @15% P.A., instead of 12% P.A., from the respective dates of deposits, till realization and interest @12% P.A., on the  amount of compensation, mentioned in Clause (ii), from the date of filing the complaint, till realization, besides payment of costs, to the tune of Rs.20,000/-.

5.       Mr. Aditya Narain, learned Counsel for the Builder Co. submits that the Builder Co. is attempting a settlement with the Complainant, for which the Complainant has been called to its office. The Builder Co. is principally aggrieved with the rate of interest of 12% per annum (on the amount deposited by the Complainant) awarded by the State Commission. The Hon’ble Supreme Court is awarding interest at the rate of 6% per annum (related judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court have not been filed by the Builder Co., nor the citations referred to during the submissions). The State Commission did not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint. 

6.       It is noted that the prayer made in the Memorandum of Appeal is for setting aside the impugned Order dated 08.06.2015 of the State Commission.

7.       It is also noted that the State Commission has passed a well-appraised reasoned Order, it has aptly dealt with all the issues and contentions raised by the Builder Co.

8.       Specifically, the State Commission has appropriately dealt with the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction in paras 20 to 22 of its Order.

It may be added that the general rule is that the preliminary objection re jurisdiction should be raised in the first instance in the forum of original jurisdiction. The onus was on the Builder Co. to raise its preliminary objection on maintainability in the first instance before the State Commission, at the relevant stage, and it was free to agitate it further. There is nothing on record to show that the preliminary objection was duly made by the Builder Co. in the first instance before the State Commission, either by way of submissions recorded or by way of any interlocutory application. In appeal also, filed in 2015, this preliminary objection re pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission was not raised in the very first instance before this Commission by way of submissions recorded in any daily Order or by way of any interlocutory application. Raising this objection at the stage of final hearing of its appeal is ill-conceived and misplaced, when, on the one hand, it has not raised it at the relevant stage before the State Commission (or, for that matter, before this Commission), and, on the other hand, when it is in talks with the Complainant for settlement and when the only grievance argued is apropos the rate of interest awarded by the State Commission.

That being as it is, it remains that the State Commission has adequately dealt with this objection in its Order of 08.06.2015.    

9.       It is further noted that the Complainant paid a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- as booking amount on 22.07.2010, after which the subject unit was allotted by the Builder Co. to the Complainant on 14.09.2010. The agreement was executed on 30.11.2011. The assured period of completion was 18 months from the date of execution of the agreement i.e. by 29.05.2013. The Complainant deposited in total an amount of Rs.50,21,500/- with the Builder Co. The Builder Co. was not in a position to offer possession of the subject unit to the Complainant till the date the State Commission made its Award i.e. till 08.06.2015.

On the one hand, the Builder Co. was not in a position to offer possession of the subject unit within the agreed and assured period of 18 months or within a reasonable period thence (reasonable period here would connote a period that is reasonable per se and which a reasonable man will not normally agitate). On the other hand, it is holding on to the deposits made by the Complainant for over a decade.

A builder company cannot retain the amount deposited by a consumer indefinitely or unreasonably, indefinite or unreasonable holding on to the amount deposited by a consumer cannot continue ad nauseam, ad infinitum.

10.     Filing appeal with prayer for setting aside the State Commission’s Order, calling the Complainant for settlement talks at its office, being principally aggrieved only with the rate of interest, holding on to the amount deposited by the Complainant for over a decade, not being in a position to offer possession of the subject unit within the agreed and assured period or within a reasonable period thence, read in conjunction, speak for itself.

11.     Having regard to what has been abridged above, it is deemed lawful, just, equitable and conscionable to summarily dismiss the instant First Appeal No. 596 of 2015, with liberty to the Builder Co. to file appeal, afresh, within thirty days from today, after refunding the entire amount deposited by the Complainant (Rs. 50,21,500/-) with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the dates of respective deposits till the date(s) of actual realisation and after paying the lumpsum compensation (Rs. 2,00,000/-) and cost of litigation (Rs. 20,000/-), strictly restricting and confining its appeal only and only to the question of rate of interest over and above 6% per annum on the amount deposited by the Complainant.

12.     The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the Builder Co. and to the Complainant, as well as to their learned Counsel, within three days from today. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on this Commission’s website today positively.