Multiple Compensations For A Single Deficiency Is Not Justifiable: NCDRC

Ayushi Rani

4 Jun 2024 4:15 AM GMT

  • Multiple Compensations For A Single Deficiency Is Not Justifiable: NCDRC

    The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, held M/S Anant Raj Limited liable for deficiency in service and upheld the order by the District Forum and the State Commission of Rajasthan. However, the Commission altered the amount of compensation granted by the District Forum stating that multiple compensations cannot be allowed for a...

    The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, held M/S Anant Raj Limited liable for deficiency in service and upheld the order by the District Forum and the State Commission of Rajasthan. However, the Commission altered the amount of compensation granted by the District Forum stating that multiple compensations cannot be allowed for a single deficiency.

    Brief Facts of the Case

    The Complainant booked a flat with M/S Anant Raj Limited/builder under a residential scheme called ASHREY, agreeing to a total sale price of Rs.8,89,769, and initially deposited Rs.81,500. Subsequently, the complainant made additional payments on various dates, totaling Rs.6,11,888. The builder was supposed to deliver possession of the flat within three years from the booking date, but failed to do so. Consequently, the Complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum seeking a refund along with interest and compensation. The District Forum allowed the complaint henceforth the builder appealed to the State Commission. The State Commission affirmed the order given by the District Forum and directed the builder to refund the amount of Rs.6,11,888 deposited towards the booking of the flat with an interest @9% on the balance amount along with Rs 55,000 as compensation for mental agony and the cost of the proceedings.Consequently the builder filed a revision petition before the National Commission.

    Contentions of the Opposite Party

    The builder argued that the Complainant booked the flat in 2012 and that construction proceeded on schedule. However, the Complainant failed to pay the remaining balance. The Complainant requested to be allotted another flat instead of the originally booked flat. Despite this request, the Complainant did not submit the necessary original documents and concealed these facts when filing the current complaint. The builder maintained that there was no deficiency in service on their part.

    Observations by the Commission

    The Commission observed that revision under Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 grants very limited jurisdiction to the National Commission. In this case, the findings of the facts were concurrent, and the scope for revisional jurisdiction of this Commission was limited. Upon careful consideration of the case facts, no illegality, material irregularity, or jurisdictional error was found in the impugned Orders passed by the State Commission that would warrant interference under Section 21(b) of the Act, 1986. Additionally, the Supreme Court, in Sunil Kumar Maity Vs. State Bank of India & Anr., held that the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is extremely limited and should be exercised only in specific cases where the State Commission had acted beyond its jurisdiction, failed to exercise its jurisdiction, or acted illegally or with material irregularity. The commission noted that the complainant did not present any substantial reason to interfere with the detailed and reasoned orders passed by the District Forum and the State Commission in the case. Regarding the liability of the parties and the tenability of multiple reliefs in making refunds, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sushma Ashok Shiroor (2019), decided that interest on the refund should be payable from the dates of deposit to be both restitutionary and compensatory. The commission upheld that the interest rate of 9% granted was fair and just. Additionally, in DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. Vs. D.S. Dhanda, the Supreme Court held that multiple compensations for a single deficiency are not justifiable. Thus, awarding Rs. 50,000 to the Complainant for harassment and mental agony, over and above the interest already awarded, was deemed untenable.

    Case Title: M/S Anant Raj Limited Vs. Happy Yadav

    Case Number: R.P. No. 1112/2020

    Click Here To Read/Download Order 

    Next Story