This order shall dispose of Revision Petitions No.1234 and 1235 of 2006. 

RP No.1234/2006

-2-

          Respondent/complainant’s case is that he was allotted flat No.B-1/38 measuring 300 sq. yards on 09.10.1998 through an Agreement which was entered into between the respondent and the petitioner.  Tentative price of the flat was fixed at Rs.14,45,000/-.  At the time of filing of the complaint, respondent had paid Rs.11,56,000/- in various dates.  It was alleged that despite payment, petitioner failed to construct the building and possession was not given to him even after expiry of 30 months.   Hence, complaint was filed.

          District Forum directed the petitioner to pay interest @ 18% p.a. on the principal amount from the date of respective deposits till the date of payment.  Petitioner was also directed to adjust inaugural discount of Rs.30,000/- in the last installment at the time of possession.

          Petitioner being aggrieved filed an appeal before the State Commission.  State Commission reduced the rate of interest from 18% to 12% from the date of respective deposits.  Direction regarding adjustment of inaugural discount of Rs.30,000/- was set aside. 

-3-

          Petitioner not satisfied with the order passed by the State Commission, has filed the present revision petition. 

          It is not in dispute before us that the petitioner had delivered the possession to the respondent on 22.07.2005.   Respondent had, in all, paid sum of Rs.14,15,000/- after adjustment of inaugural discount of Rs.30,000/-.  According to the respondent, he had paid full payment for the flat.  The order of the State Commission  needs to be modified.  The respondent would not be entitled to any interest from the date of allotment for an initial period of three year i.e. till 09.10.2001.  This period be taken to be  the reasonable time to enable the petitioner to complete the construction.  After 09.10.2001 till the actual delivery of possession i.e. 22.7.2005, the petitioner would be liable to pay the interest @ 12% p.a. as awarded by the State Commission.  The order passed by the State Commission is modified to the extent indicated above. 

          The respondent would now be entitled to interest on the deposited amount from 09.10.2001 to 22.7.2005 only.  The petitioner would be at liberty to adjust the sum of Rs.30,000/- towards inaugural

-4-

discount.  Order of the State Commission regarding non-grant of inaugural discount is maintained because the respondent is not in revision petition.

          Petitioner is directed to pay the above amount within a period of 6 weeks, failing which the respondent would be at liberty to execute the order under Section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

          Counsel for the petitioner has now raised the point which was not a part of the proceedings before the foras below that because of increase in the area, the respondent is liable to pay some additional amount.  If that be so, the petitioner would be at liberty to recover the same by initiating separate proceedings.  It is made clear that the petitioner would not be entitled to adjust the same from the amount which has been directed to be paid to the respondent by way of interest.

RP 1235/2006

          In the present case, respondent was allotted the flat on 19.11.1998 for a sum of Rs.12,75,000/-.  The possession was given to the respondent on 22.7.2005.  The District Forum, as in RP

-5-

No.1234 of 2006, has directed the petitioner to pay interest @ 18% p.a. on the principal amount from the date of respective deposits till the date of payment and also to adjust sum of Rs.30,000/- towards inaugural discount in the last installment.

          Petitioner being aggrieved filed an appeal before the State Commission.  The State Commission  maintained order of the District Forum including the inaugural discount except that it reduced the rate of interest from 18% to 12% p.a.

          The State Commission was not justified in directing the payment of interest from the date of respective deposits.  Three years being the reasonable period had to be given to the petitioner to complete the construction.  Accordingly, the respondent would be entitled to interest from 20.11.2001 till the handing over of the possession i.e. 22.7.2005.  With this modification, this revision petition is dismissed. 

Petitioner is directed to pay the above amount within a period of 6 weeks, failing which the respondent would be at liberty to execute the order under Section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

-6-

            Counsel for the petitioner has now raised the point which was not a part of the proceedings before the foras below that because of increase in the area, the respondent is liable to pay some additional amount.  If that be so, the petitioner would be at liberty to recover the same by initiating separate proceedings.  It is made clear that the petitioner would not be entitled to adjust the same from the amount which has been directed to be paid to the respondent by way of interest.