ORDER
S.N. Kapoor, J. (Presiding Member)
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties in both the appeals.
2. Both the appeals are directed against similar order dated 23rd April, 1996 passed by the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in O.P. No. 113/96 and O.P. No. 26/96. In both these matters, respondent-complainant applied for allotment of a plot in Sathya Gardens. Construction was to be completed within a period of 12 months from the date of approval of the building plan. Entire project could not be developed for Tamil Nadu Government issued G.O. No. 632 of 27.7.1993 decreasing the FSI. Consequently, papers filed for granting building permission way back on 10th May, were returned by the Chief Planner M.M.D.A. on 26.8.1993, with the direction to file revised plan. The appellant filed Writ Petition No. 2083/93! The opposite party/appellant was willing to refund the amount paid by the complainant with interest @ 18% per annum. It is the case of the complainant that after constructing ground floor, they had not raised any construction for the next three years. As such, there is no dispute about the breach of contract.
3. The State Commission in both these matters took the view that refusal to execute the sale-deed in respect of undivided share of the land in favour of the complainant, was quite reasonable for it clearly amounted to deficiency in service, and directed the appellant to execute a sale-deed for the undivided share of the land as stated in the agreement Ext. A4 in favour of the complainant.
4. In both these matters since all the parties who could be interested in the land, were neither before the District Forum nor the State Commission nor before this Commission, it would not be appropriate to pass a direction for execution of a sale-deed of undivided share in the land. Besides the contract has been frustrated in view of reduction of the F.S.I. by the aforesaid notification. In such circumstances, it would be appropriate to compensate the appellant by directing refund of the amount deposited by the complainant in both these appeals along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of deposit with cost of Rs. 10,000 (Rupees ten thousand) to each of the respondent-complainant in these two appeals.
5. Both these appeals i.e., First Appeal No. 217 of 1997, C. Sathia Samuel v. S. Bhayalakshmi, and First Appeal No. 215 of 1997, C. Sathia Samuel v. S. Bhayalakshmi (R. Madanagopal) are accordingly allowed. The impugned order is set aside subject to refund of the amount deposited by the complainant in these two matters.