1.      These revision petitions have been filed against the order dated 20.11.2014 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan (in short ‘the State Commission’) in FA No.51 of 2014 filed by the petitioner/complainant against order dated 12.12.2013 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewari, (in short ‘the District Forum’) in consumer complaint No.392 of 2011.

2.      Brief facts relevant for deciding the two revision petitions are that the complainant booked a plot of 320 sq.yds. with the opposite party on 27.10.2005.  He made further deposits with the opposite party on 09.08.2007.  The opposite party informed that plot of 320 sq.yds. was not available and he was allotted a plot measuring 460.45 sq.yds.  The opposite party issued letters dated 12.09.2007and13.03.2008 to deposit the remaining amounts relating to plot.  The total amount paid by the complainant was Rs.11.90 lakhs.  Complainant was continuously requesting the opposite party to allot a plot of 320 sq.yds for which he had applied.  When the opposite party did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant, he applied for refund on 06.03.2011.  The opposite party refunded amount Rs.11.90 lakhs by sending a cheque to the complainant on 13.05.2011. However, the complainant refused to receive that cheque.  The complainant then filed the complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (in short ‘the District Forum’) with prayer to direct the opposite party to allot a plot of 320 sq.yds.  The complaint was resisted by the opposite party on the ground that the amount was refunded to the complainant.  However, he did not receive the cheque.  The District Forum, after considering the submissions of both the parties allowed the complaint as under:-

“13.         Resultantly, this complaint is hereby allowed directing the opposite parties to refund the entire deposits i.e. Rs.3,20,000/- deposited on 27.10.2005, Rs.2,00,000/- deposited on 07.02.2006, Rs.2,50,000/- deposited on 29.08.2007, RS.4,20,000/- - deposited on 27.10.2007 with interest @9% p.a. from the date of respective deposits till payment maximum within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the awarded amount shall fetch interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of expiry of said period of 45 days till payment.  In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, no compensation amount is allowed.  However, the complainant is allowed a litigation expenses of Rs.2,200/-.”

3.      Being aggrieved by the above order of the District Forum, the complainant preferred an appeal before the State Commission bearing No.51 of 2014  which was allowed vide its order dated as under:-

“Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances, the respondents are directed to refund the amount deposited by the complainant alongwith the interest @ 18% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of return.  They are also held liable to pay Rs.One lac for physical harassment and mental agony and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

It  may be mentioned that the appellant alleged in relief clause that tribunal may pass any other order or directions which are in the interest of justice.

The appeal is allowed accordingly.”

4.      Aggrieved with the aforesaid order of the State Commission, the opposite party as well as complainant both have filed present revision petitions.

5.      Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.  For the sake of identification, the parties will be addressed as complainant and opposite party.

6.      The learned counsel for the opposite party stated that the opposite party has already complied with the order of the District Forum dated 12.12.2013, the cheque No.704426 dated 04.2.2014 for an amount of Rs.19,45,852/- was sent to the complainant vide opposite party letter dated 04.02.2014.  The learned counsel mentioned that the District Forum has awarded 9% p.a. interest, which was quite reasonable looking at the current rates of interest.  The District Forum has clearly stated in its order that no compensation is justified in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.  However, the State Commission has ordered18% interest p.a. on the deposited amount which is totally unreasonable looking at the current bank rates.  Moreover the State Commission has further ordered a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to be paid to the complainant.  Interest is also in the nature of compensation and both cannot be awarded simultaneously.  The State Commission has committed a grave error in this regard.  The learned counsel stated that if there is non-payment of instalment by the allottee then deficiency cannot be attributed to the opposite party. To support the argument the learned counsel cited the judgment passed by this Commission in Ashok Kumar Chug Vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA), RP 694 of 2011, decided on 10.12.2014 (NC), wherein it has been held that the allottee himself being defaulter, no deficiency can be attributed to the opposite party.  Learned counsel further cited the following judgments in support of his arguments:-

“i)     DLF Southern Towns Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dipu C. Seminlal, RP 1973 of 2014, decided on 7.01.2015 (NC)

ii)      Gian Chand Vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority, RP 800 of 2013, decided on 19.01.2015 (NC)”

7.      The learned counsel for the opposite party also stated that there is a delay of 15 days in filing the present revision petition.  The delay has occurred due to the misplacement of the certified copy due to renovation work in the office of the learned counsel for the petitioner.  It was prayed to condone the delay on the ground mentioned in the application for condonation of delay.

8.      On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant stated that in most of the cases the National Commission or the State Commission is providing 18% p.a. interest on the refund amount.  The State Commission has rightly allowed refund with 18% interest p.a.  The learned counsel further submitted that the revision petition of the complainant has been filed with the request to order the opposite party to allot the plot of 320 sq.yds.  The learned counsel also stated that the complainant is now willing to take even the plot of 460.5 sq.yds.  In reply the learned counsel for the opposite party stated that no plot is available and the State Commission has recorded this fact in its order.

9.      I have carefully examined the material on record and have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by both the parties.  The State Commission has categorically observed that no plot is available and therefore, the request of the complainant for allotment of a plot cannot be accepted. The learned counsel for the opposite party also stated during the arguments that no vacant plot is available.  Moreover, letter dated 18.06.2011 sent by the opposite party to the complainant states that the refund is being provided to the complainant in reference to his letter dated 06.05.2011, which was for refund.  If the complainant has already demanded refund, he cannot now ask for allotment of the plot as the money has already been refunded to him in compliance of the District Forum order by the opposite party.  Thus, I do not find force in the revision petition preferred by the complainant so far as it relates to directing the opposite party to allot a plot to the complainant.

10.    The District Forum has awarded 9% p.a interest on the refund amount, whereas, State Commission has allowed 18% p.a. interest.  Looking at the current bank rates and the recent decisions of this Commission, an interest of 12% p.a. seems reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 

11.    Based on the above discussion, revision petition No.967 of 2015, Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd. Vs. Desh Raj Yadav filed by the opposite party is partly allowed and the order of the State Commission is modified to the extent that the interest on the refunded amount shall be at the rate of 12% p.a. instead of 18% p.a. as ordered by the State Commission.  The revision petition No.540 of 2015, Desh Raj Yadav Vs. Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd. & Anr. filed by the complainant is dismissed.