- (1.)Although, as per office report, the Respondent remains unserved but Mr. Ajit Joy, Advocate, has put in appearance, on his behalf. He states that neither the travel and allied expenses have been paid to the complainant nor the requisite deposit, as directed vide order dated 20.10.2016, has been made by the Appellants. He,however, admits that the travel expenses were offered to his junior last evening but the same was not accepted. Be that as it may, Counsel appearing for the Appellants undertakes to pay to the Complainant the a foresaid amount within a week from today.
(2.)This First Appeal under Sec. 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act") has been preferred by a real estate developer and its Chief Executive, against the order dated 13.5.2016, passed by the Kerala State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission. Thiruvananthapuram (for short "the State Commission") in CC/95/2015. By the impugned order, the State Commission, while allowing the Complaint filed by the Respondent, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Appellants on account of delay in completing the construction of the house, within the period agreed to in terms of the agreement dated 15.2011, as modified vide renewal agreement dated 15.2011, has issued the following directions :
2. An amount of Rs. 2 lakh (Rupees two lakh only) as compensation for mental agony.

(3.)An amount of Rs. 25,000 (Rupees twenty five only) towards cost of proceedings. The order shall be compiled within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Failure to comply this order will entitle the complainant to recover interest @ 12% to the entire amount from the date of this order till realization."
Observing thus :

"The complainant availed loan for payment of sale consideration and he has to pay interest against the loan amount The complainant paid Rs. 15,48,600 and he being a salaried person is struggling for the repayment of loan along with the house rent as he is occupying in a rented house. We find that the complainant suffered mental agony due to the non-completion of the house and financial loss. The complainant also incurred expenses for conducting the case engaging lawyer and other expenses and we fix Rs. 25,000 as cost of proceedings. We are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practise on the part of the opposite parties and opposite parties are liable to refund the amount received from the complainant with interest.

3. The short grievance of the Appellants is that since in the Complaint the main prayer was for a direction to the Appellants to complete the construction, within a fixed time frame, which the Appellants were willing to abide by, the State Commission was not justified in directing the refund of the said amount along with compensation and interest. It is also the stand of the Appellants that the construction could not be completed within the stimulated time because of an interim stay by the Municipal Corporation, Thiruvananthapuram, on the allegation that the Complainant had encroached upon the land of his neighbour, on which the house in question was to be constructed.