JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) 1. None is present for the parties. The petitioner has sent a letter stating that the case be decided in his absence because he is unable to attend this Commission. -2- 2. The respondent is absent despite service. He be proceeded against ex parte. 3. Mr. Venkatesh Uppala-petitioner/complainant entered into an agreement of allotment of plot dated 1.7.2008. He made part payment in the sum of Rs.8,40,000/- on the same day and thereafter he paid another sum of Rs.2,80,000/- on 30.11.2010. 4. There was some delay in construction of the house. Therefore, the complainant wrote a letter to the opposite party on 28.1.2011 that he did not want to go for the purchase of plot allotted to him at ‘Nice Vistas’, Mysore purely for personal reasons and sought refund of the amount paid by him alongwith interest @15% p.a. The respondent made the payment to the complainant but did not pay the entire amount. 5. The fora below have held that the opposite parties have played unfair trade practice on the complainant. Under the circumstances, the District Forum partly allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to pay the residue amount in the sum of Rs.1,80,048/- together with interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum to the complainant from 23.08.2011 -3- until payment within 30 days from the date of this order. The costs of Rs.2,000/- were also imposed upon the opposite party. 6. Aggrieved by that order, the complainant preferred an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the appeal. 7. We have perused the agreement. Paras 7 and 8 run as follows: “7. The Developer is hereby agreeing that, in case of the change of the law of the land it could not obtain the land conversion order from the competent authority or could not obtain the Approved Layout Plan or in case of acquisition of the respective lands by the [BMICPA] or any local body in such a case the Developer could not implement the Project within a period of 2 years from today under such circumstances the Developer assured the Allottee to refund the entire amount -4- received by it along with interest at the rate of 15% per annum. 8. The Purchaser has the liberty for taking back his money paid to the Developer, without giving any reason by giving 30 days’ notice and the Developer undertakes to return the money with 15% interest per annum.” 8. It must be borne in mind that there was huge delay in handing over the plot to the petitioner. The needful could not be done within 2 years. The opposite party has been utilizing the amount paid by the complainant for business purposes. It is clear that there was huge delay. The petitioner wanted to withdraw the amount due to personal reasons. The people are exasperated by senseless delays. No explanation is forthcoming why there was delay in handing over the plot to the complainant. The petitioner in para 8 of the affidavit, admits that he has not earned out anything from these deposits rather he has invested on the land and several works besides other expenses in developing the State of Art and layout and site. The -5- complainant was so fed up that he had to approach the Police. The Opposite Party has attempted to feather his own interest. He wants to have benefit of both the worlds. At best, it can be a case of contributory negligence. The petitioner should have written specifically that due to delay, he desired that his money should be returned. 9. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby modify the order of the State Commission and order that the opposite party will pay interest @12% per annum from the date of deposits of the amount i.e. 1.7.2008 and 31.11.2010 till its realization. The amount already paid or deposited shall stand adjusted/deducted. Rest amount be paid within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order otherwise it will carry interest @15% per annum. The revision petition is disposed of in the above terms. | 
