Secretary, South Wes... v. K. Velayudhan, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Revision Petition No. 454 of 2011 (From the order dated 19.01.11 in FA No. 3909/2010 of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka) with I.A 1/2011 (for stay)

Attorney(S)

Mr. Sharanagouda N. Patil, Advocate
For Mr. V.N Raghupathy, Advocate

Judges

Suresh Chandra, Presiding Member

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The complainant (respondent before this Commission) approached the District Forum alleging that the opposite party (petitioner society) did not allot the site as promised and therefore sought refund of Rs.2,40,000/- deposited with the society together with interest. The society refunded the principal amount of Rs.2,40,000/- but did not pay any interest for the period the advance remained deposited. The District Forum accepted the complaint by order dated 26.08.2010 and directed the society to pay interest at 10% per annum from the respective dates of deposit until 12.04.2010 and Rs.1,000/- as costs. The society's appeal to the State Commission was dismissed on 19.01.2011, confirming the District Forum's order. The society filed this revision petition challenging the State Commission's order.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the petitioner society is liable to pay interest on the advance/deposit made by the complainant for allotment of a site.
Whether the revisional jurisdiction should be exercised to interfere with the concurrent orders of the District Forum and the State Commission (i.e., whether there is any material irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the concurrent orders).

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

The petitioner society is a "no profit no loss" organization and has no provision for payment of interest on advances/deposits made by members for allotment of plots.
There was no agreement between the parties to pay interest on the advance amount paid by the complainant towards the site value.
The petitioner relied on a prior judgment of this Commission in Kalyanam & Anr. Vs. Navin Housing and Properties (Pvt.) Ltd & Ors. [I (2008) CPJ 415 (NC)] in support of its position.

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of any specific arguments advanced by the complainant (respondent before this Commission) beyond the factual assertion that the complainant sought refund because the society did not confirm the lay-out and allot the site as promised.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Kalyanam & Anr. Vs. Navin Housing and Properties (Pvt.) Ltd & Ors. [I (2008) CPJ 415 (NC)]	Relied upon by the petitioner's counsel (reference to a prior decision of this Commission).	The Court found that the facts and circumstances of that cited case were different from the present case and therefore that judgment did not provide relief to the petitioner society in this matter.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Commission reviewed the concurrent findings of the District Forum and the State Commission. It noted that the complainant did not seek refund because he no longer wanted the site, but because the society failed to confirm the layout and allot the site as promised — a deficiency in service. The District Forum had also relied on other cases in which the society had been held liable to pay interest. Having regard to these circumstances, the Commission agreed that the District Forum rightly accepted the complaint and directed interest and costs.

The petitioner's contention that the society is a "no profit no loss" organization with no provision for payment of interest, and that there was no agreement to pay interest, was considered. The petitioner had also relied on this Commission's earlier judgment in Kalyanam & Anr. v. Navin Housing. The Commission observed, however, that the facts and circumstances of that earlier decision were different from the present case; consequently, that precedent did not aid the petitioner. Finding no material irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the concurrent orders, the Commission declined to interfere in revisional jurisdiction.

Holding and Implications

The revision petition is dismissed at the threshold.

Implications:

The concurrent orders of the District Forum and State Commission remain intact and are not disturbed.
As confirmed by the State Commission and left undisturbed by this Court, the petitioner society is required to pay interest at 10% per annum on the deposited amount for the respective periods up to 12.04.2010 and to pay Rs.1,000/- towards costs of proceedings (as directed by the District Forum).
No costs of the revision petition were ordered against the parties by this Commission ("no order as to costs").
The opinion states that no new precedent was declared; the earlier judgment relied upon by the petitioner was distinguished on facts and did not provide relief.

Show full summary ...

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

Secretary, South Western Railway House Building Cooperative Society Mysore South, Mysore v. K. Velayudhan

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI

REVISION PETITION NO. 454 OF 2011

(Against the Order dated 19/01/2011 in Appeal No. 3909/2010 of the State Commission Karnataka)

1. SECRETARY, SOUTH WESTREN RAILWAY HOUSE

BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIOETY House Building, Co-Operative, Society, (R) Mysore South Mysore - 570008

Karnataka ...........Petitioner(s)

Versus

1. K. VELAYUDHAN

No. 988, 9th Cross, BEML Layout, 2nd Stage, Rajarajeswari Nagar

Bhogadhi ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. SURESH CHANDRA, PRESIDING MEMBER For the Petitioner : NEMO

For the Respondent : NEMO

Dated : 24 Feb 2011

ORDER

The complainant, who is respondent herein, approached the District Forum with a complaint that the opposite party who is petitioner herein, did not allot the site as promised and, therefore, he demanded the refund of the amount of Rs.2,40,000/- deposited by him with the OP Society alongwith interest. However, while the OP Society refunded the amount of advance of Rs.2,40,000/- to the complainant, it did not pay any interest thereon during the period when the advance remained deposited with the society. On appraisal of the issues and evidence adduced by the parties, the District Forum accepted the complaint by its order dated 26.08.2010 and directed the OP Society to pay interest @10% p.a. from the respective dates of the deposit of the amount till 12.04.2010. The OP was also directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant towards cost of proceedings. The appeal filed by the OP Society before the State Commission also did not find favour and came to be dismissed thereby confirming the order of the District Forum. The challenge in this revision petition is to this impugned order of the State Commission passed on 19.01.2011. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner society and perused the concurrent orders accepting the complaint passed by the fora below. The limited issue before us is in respect of the payment of interest on the amount of deposit which remained deposited with the petitioner society for different periods. The contention of the counsel of petitioner society is that the society is a o profit no lossorganization and has no provision for payment of interest on such advance / deposits made by the members for allotment of plots. He further submitted that there was no agreement either to pay the interest on the advance amount paid by the complainant towards the site value. In this context, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgement of this Commission in the case of . Kalyanam & Anr. Vs. Navin Housing and Properties (Pvt.) Ltd & Ors. [I (2008) CPJ 415

(NC)] 3. Having considered the facts and circumstances of this case, it is to be noted that the complainant in this case sought the refund of the advance amount not because he did not want the site from the OP Society but because as promised and assured the OP did not confirm the lay-out and allot the site. In view of this deficiency in service on the part of the OP Society, the complainant demanded the refund of the amount. Taking due note of this important aspect and also the fact that in some other cases referred to by the District Forum in para 7 of its order, the OP Society has been held liable to pay interest, the District forum has rightly accepted the complaint of the respondent. Agreeing with this finding of the District Forum, the State Commission dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order. There being no material irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error involved in the matter, we do not find it to be a fit case for our interference with the concurrent orders of the fora below while exercising our revisional jurisdiction. The facts and circumstances of the case (supra) relied on by the counsel for the petitioner being different, the judgement of this Commission in that case does not provide any relief to the petitioner Society in the present case. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed at the threshold with no order as to costs.

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

SURESH CHANDRA

PRESIDING MEMBER

Secretary, South Wes... v. K. Velayudhan