(Uday Umesh Lalit and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.)
Shreyans Jain and Others ___________________________ Appellant(s);
v.
Arijit Bhattacharyya and Others ____________________ Respondent(s).
Civil Appeal No. 1097 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 5579 of 2021) (Arising out of SLP (C) D. No. 39616 of 2019), decided on April 5, 2021
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 24.01.2019 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (‘The National Commission’, for short) in First Appeal No. 901 of 2017.
4. While disposing of Complaint Case No. CC/14/2012 preferred by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (‘The State Commission’ for short) had directed:
“That the complaint is allowed on contest against OP Nos. 1 to 7 with cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid by OP No. 1/developer in favour of the complainants and dismissed against OP No. 8 without any order as to costs.
The OP Nos. 1 & 2 are jointly and severally directed to refund Rs. 5,91,150/- alongwith interest thereon @18% p.a. in favour of the complainants from the date of receipt of the same till its full realization. The OP Nos. 1 & 2 are also directed to make payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs. 50,000/- as penal damages to the complainants. All the payments must be made within 30 days from date, otherwise the amount of compensation and litigation cost shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from this date till its realisation.
The OP Nos. 1 & 2 are also directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- Bank draft as penalty in the State Consumer Welfare Fund of this Commission within 60 days positively in default the amount shall carry an interest @ 9% p.a.”
5. The directions stood affirmed with the dismissal of First Appeal by the National Commission, which decision is under challenge in this appeal.
6. While issuing notice, the matter was confined with regard to imposition of penalty in the sum of Rs. 10 lakhs.
7. Mr. Sanjay Mukherjee, learned Advocate appearing for the original complainants, accepted that the amounts of Rs. 5,91,150/-, Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- as set out in the operative part of the directions issued by the State Commission have been received by his client. It is however submitted that the element of interest as awarded by the State Commission on the sum of Rs. 5,91,150/- has not yet been received by his client. Mr. Mukherjee also submitted that on account of such imposition of interest, his client is entitled to a sum of Rs. 10,81,670/-.
8. Mr. Rabin Majumder, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant, submitted that apart from having made over the amounts as accepted by the learned counsel for the respondent, a further sum of Rs. 11,67,032/- stands deposited in the Registry of the State Commission. He further submitted that after the order issued by this Court on the last occasion, an additional sum of Rs. 5 lakhs has also been deposited by his client.
9. Since notice was confined to the question of imposition of penalty, we do not enter into the question regarding rate of interest directed to be paid to the respondent-original complainant.
10. However, considering the totality of the circumstances, in our view, interest of justice would stand subserved if, from and out of the amounts deposited by the appellant, a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs is made over to the original complainants towards element of interest payable in terms of the directions issued by the State Commission towards satisfaction of all the claims of the original complainants. Rest of the amount deposited by the appellant shall be returned by the Registry of the State Commission to the appellant.
11. Insofar as the imposition of penalty is concerned, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case, we relieve the appellant of the burden of the penalty imposed by the State Commission and confirmed by the National Commission.
12. Ordered accordingly.
13. This appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs.
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No. 39616/2019
Shreyans Jain & Ors _____________________________ Petitioner(s)
v.
Arijit Bhattacharyya and Others ___________________ Respondent(s)
(With IA No. 115843/2020-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No. 115844/2020-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING/CURING THE DEFECTS and IA No. 11533/2021-APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION)
Date : 05-04-2021 This petition was called on for hearing today.
(Before Uday Umesh Lalit and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.)
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Rabin Majumder, Adv.
Ms. Akansha Srivastava, Adv.
Mr. Joydeep Mukherjee, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Sanjay Mukherjee, Adv.
Ms. Komal Sorout, Adv.
Mr. Rajan Kumar Singh, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
14. Delay condoned.
15. Leave granted.
16. The appeal stands disposed of in terms of the signed order.
17. Pending applications stand disposed of.
———
