Whether the National Commission was in error in partially reversing the State Commission's order for refund?
Consumer Disputes — State Commission — Refund with interest — National Commission — Partially reversing —
Consumer Disputes — Construction of flat not completed — Refund ordered by State Commission — Partially reversed by National Commission —
Held: The National Commission was in error in partially reversing the State Commission's refund order, so its order is set aside, the order dated 15.10.2020 is restored, and refund is to be paid within two months. (¶4, 5)
Whether the National Commission was in error in partially reversing the State Commission's order for refund?
Yes. The State Commission directed refund of Rs.21,18,000 with interest because construction of the flat was not completed; the National Commission was in error in partially reversing it to Rs.16,18,000, so its order was set aside and the State Commission's order restored. [¶2, ¶3, ¶4]
Prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment.
“By an order dated 15.10.2020, M.P. State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Bhopal, (M.P.) (for short ’the State Commission’) directed the respondent herein to refund a total sum of Rs.21,18,000/- (Rupees twenty-one lakhs eighteen thousand only) to the appellant with interest thereon within a period of two months. The operative portion of the order of the State Commission is as under:”
“However, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short ‘the National Commission’) has passed the impugned order dated 15.10.2020 directing the refund of Rs.16,18,000/- (Rupees sixteen lakhs eighteen thousand only) with interest @ 9% per annum within a period of two months from the date of the said order.”
“Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials placed on record, we are of the view that the National Commission was in error in partially reversing the order of the State Commission. Therefore, the order of the National Commission impugned herein is hereby set aside and the order of the State Commission dated 15.10.2020 is hereby restored.”
“The respondent is directed to pay/refund the amount in terms of the order of the State Commission dated 15.10.2020 within a period of two months from today, if already not paid/refunded.”
Headnote & Points of Law
You've used your free headnotes this month
The Court's judgment is below in full, free, as always — that never changes. What needs an account is LexStreak's own work on it: the headnote, the questions this judgment settles, and the passages that decide them. A free account opens all of it again.
Create my free accountFree forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
Leave granted.
By an order dated 15.10.2020, M.P. State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Bhopal, (M.P.) (for short ’the State Commission’) directed the respondent herein to refund a total sum of Rs.21,18,000/- (Rupees twenty-one lakhs eighteen thousand only) to the appellant with interest thereon within a period of two months. The operative portion of the order of the State Commission is as under:
“It is proved in the light of above investigation/observation and justice citations that even after receipt of an amount of Rs.21.18 Lakhs, within a fixed time period, which is generally presumed approximately two years, the construction of the flat has not been completed. Hence the complainant is entitled to receive the deposit amount back along with interest. Therefore this complaint case is allowed/accepted and respondent is directed to pay an amount of Rs.21.18 Lakh (Rs. Twenty One Lakh Eighteen Thousand only) within a period of two months and also to pay simple interest of 9% per annum upon the above said amount from the dated 19.01.2015 the last depositing installment till realization date. The respondent also to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant.”
However, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short ‘the National Commission’) has passed the impugned order dated 15.10.2020 directing the refund of Rs.16,18,000/- (Rupees sixteen lakhs eighteen thousand only) with interest @ 9% per annum within a period of two months from the date of the said order.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials placed on record, we are of the view that the National Commission was in error in partially reversing the order of the State Commission. Therefore, the order of the National Commission impugned herein is hereby set aside and the order of the State Commission dated 15.10.2020 is hereby restored.
The respondent is directed to pay/refund the amount in terms of the order of the State Commission dated 15.10.2020 within a period of two months from today, if already not paid/refunded.
The civil appeal is disposed of accordingly. ….……………………………J. (S. ABDUL NAZEER) ….……………………………J. (J.K. MAHESHWARI) New Delhi; August 24, 2022
Is non-payment of a part of the sale price a ground for cancellation of a registered Sale Deed once title has passed?
2020 INSC 450 · Supreme Court of India
Does the burden to prove that property is joint property of a Hindu Undivided Family lie on the person who alleges it?
2020 INSC 327 · Supreme Court of India
Can a confession statement be used to frame charges against an accused in the absence of any other evidence?
CRL RC.2194/2023 · Madras High Court
The Supreme Court and the Madras High Court decide something every day. Read one a day.
A free account gets you the day's judgments in your practice areas, a reading streak, and folders to keep what matters.
Start reading freeOne judgment a day. That's the whole habit.
LexStreak turns the Supreme Court's and the Madras High Court's output into a five-minute daily read for advocates — plain-language headnotes, the questions each judgment settles, and the full text when you need it.
Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
Headnote and questions prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk · Report an error · Privacy