Complainants have filed the present revision petition.

          On account of delay in delivery of possession of the shop, petitioners filed a complaint before the District Forum seeking a direction to the respondent to pay interest on the sum of Rs.11,12,200/- from 03.7.2000 till the date of delivery of possession on 20.11.2003.  Petitioners had also alleged that the maintenance charges had been wrongly taken from them; that the area of the

-2-

shop delivered to them was less in area by one square meter; that the water tank which had been installed in the common area on the back side of the shop prevented the complainants to enjoy full use of the shop as they could not open back door as provided by Delhi Building Bye Laws Clause 6.4.1.(J). 

          District Forum, after taking into consideration the pleadings as well as the evidence produced before it allowed the complaint in the following terms:

          In view of the above Supreme Court Judgment we direct D.D.A. to pay interest on Rs.11,12,000.00 @ 15% (Fifteen Percent) from 23.7.00 (1½  month after 8.6.00) till 20.11.03.

(ii)              Rs.11,120.00 as maintenance charges have been wrongly charged as services had been handed over to M.C.D. in 1997 whereas allotment of shop was made in the year 2000 and D.D.A. was to charge for maintenance only upto the period when services were handed over to M.C.D.  This amount of Rs.11,120.00 be therefore refunded to complainants.  No separate interest is ordered to be paid on the amount as this amount is included in the amount of Rs.11,12,000/- on which interest has already been allowed as per clause (i) above.  In case the amount of Rs.11,120.00 is paid the amount of Rs.11,120.0 would be reduced from Rs.11,12,000.00 for the purpose of interest for the remaining period.

(iii)            Area of shop delivered to the complainant is short by .996 i.e. 1 sq. Mtr. And therefore D.D.A. is directed to refund proportionate amount for the area of 1 Sq. Mtrs.

(iv)            Water tank which has been installed in the common area on the back side of the shop prevented the complainants from enjoying full use of the shop as they cannot open back door as provided by Delhi Building Bye Laws Clause 6.4.1.(J).  It is stated to have been installed by some company with connivance of staff of D.D.A. though it is denied by D.D.A.  counsel who stated that D.D.A. is not at all concern with the installation.  However D.D.A. is responsible for keeping common area free from any encroachment so that allottees are in a position to use it.  O.P. is directed to remove the encroachment so that allottees are in a position to use it.  O.P. is directed to remove the encroachment from the common area so that complainant can enjoy the possession of shop properly and fully.  If D.D.A. does not remove encroachment within one month of receipt of the order, complainants shall be free to remove it at their own costs.

(v)              Complainants have asked for compensation which we feel if not justified as interest ha already been allowed.  However, unnecessarily driven to complaint by O.P.

(vi)            D.D.A. shall comply with the order within one month of its receipt, failing which further interest would be payable on the amount payable on the basis of the order from the date of order till payment.”

          Respondent DDA being aggrieved filed an appeal before the State Commission limiting to the point of interest.  According to them, the interest awarded at the rate of 15% to the respondent was excessive.  The State Commission instead of quantifying or reducing the rate of interest, awarded a lump-sum of Rs.2,10,000/- inclusive of maintenance charges and pro-rata charges for the reduced area by less than one square meter. 

          Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, petitioner as well as respondent filed revision petitions.  Revision Petition No.3399/2006 filed by D.D.A. was dismissed in limini on 27.11.2006, meaning thereby that the order passed by the State Commission has attained ‘Finality’ insofaras the D.D.A. is concerned. 

          Counsel for the petitioner contends that the State Commission was wrong in fixing a lumpsum amount.

          We agree with the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner.  Order of the State Commission is set aside and that of the District Forum is restored with the modification that the rate of interest shall be 9% p.a. instead of 15% p.a. which had been granted by the State Commission.

          Counsel for the respondent states that a sum of Rs.2,17,500/- awarded by the State Commission has already been paid to the petitioner (Rs.2,10,000/- as lumpsum and Rs.7500/- as costs). 

            Respondent is directed to recalculate the amount payable to the petitioner as per directions issued by the District Forum with reduced rate of interest @ 9% instead of 15% p.a. after giving a set up of amount already paid within eight weeks.