Case Title: M/S Anant Raj Limited Vs. Happy Yadav
Case Number: R.P. No. 1112/2020
In a recent judgement, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), led by AVM J. Rajendra, held M/S Anant Raj Limited accountable for subpar service. The judgement reaffirms the decisions made by the District Forum and the State Commission of Rajasthan. However, the NCDRC adjusted the compensation awarded by the District Forum, emphasizing that a single service deficiency cannot warrant multiple compensations.
Let’s walk through the case: The complainant booked a flat under a residential scheme ASHREY with M/S Anant Raj Limited, for a total price of Rs.8,89,769, and initially paid Rs.81,500. Over time, the complainant made further payments, accumulating to Rs.6,11,888. The builder was to hand over the flat within three years from the booking date but failed. As a result, the complainant sought a refund, interest, and compensation, leading to the District Forum’s ruling in favor of the complainant. The builder then appealed to the State Commission, which upheld the District Forum’s decision, ordering the builder to refund the Rs.6,11,888 with 9% annual interest, and pay Rs 55,000 as compensation for mental agony and legal costs. The builder challenged this decision at the National Commission.
The builder claimed that the complainant booked the flat in 2012 and that construction proceeded as planned. However, the outstanding balance was not settled by the complainant, who requested a different flat but failed to submit the necessary original documents and hid these facts when filing the complaint. The builder insisted they delivered their service appropriately.
The Commission noted that under Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, its jurisdiction to revise is very limited. In this case, the evidence was clear, and the scope for revision was minimal. After a careful review, no illegality, significant irregularity, or jurisdictional error was found in the orders from the State Commission.
In the Supreme Court case, Sunil Kumar Maity Vs. State Bank of India & Anr., it was held that the Commission’s revisional jurisdiction is exceedingly limited and should only be used in cases where the State Commission has overstepped its jurisdiction, failed to exercise its jurisdiction, or acted illegally. The Commission found no such issues in this case.
In terms of the parties’ liability and the feasibility of multiple refunds, the Supreme Court case, Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sushma Ashok Shiroor (2019), ruled that refund interest should be both restorative and compensatory from the deposit dates. The Commission agreed that the 9% interest rate was fair. However, in DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. Vs. D.S. Dhanda, the Supreme Court established that multiple compensations for a single deficiency are not justifiable. Hence, the additional Rs. 50,000 compensation for harassment and mental agony was considered unjustifiable.
The takeaway from this case? While consumers are entitled to fair compensation for service deficiencies, multiple compensations for a single deficiency are not justified. This case underscores the need for builders to adhere to their commitments and for consumers to be aware of their rights and legal avenues.
