PER MRS. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER

          Challenge in this Revision Petition, under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short “the Act”), is to the order dated 13.12.2011  in Appeal No. 354 of 2010, passed by the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short “the State Commission”).  By the  impugned order, the State Commission has allowed the Appeal preferred by the Respondent  Authority and has directed the Complainant to refund the money he had received  as interest during the course of Execution Proceedings, in compliance of the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ghaziabad (in short “ the District Forum”).

 2.      The brief facts, material to the case, are that the Complainant opted for a Single Storey house in the Self Financing Rechana-Vaishali & Rachana Indirapuram Housing Scheme of Ghaziabad Development Authority and deposited ₹25,000/- as registration amount on 20.03.1992. An allotment letter dated 07.08.1992 was issued to him with the following particulars:

          1.       Allottee code         :         636 11A 024

          2.       Scheme Name       :         Indira Puram Hosing Scheme

          3.       Property Category :         Rachna HIG (S/S)

          4.       Estimated Cost      :         ₹4,40,000/-

          5.       Registration Amount:       ₹25,000/- (Already Paid)

It was stated that the amount was to be paid in six installments by 15.09.1995.  The Complainant averred that he paid an amount of ₹ 2,62,501/-, the details of which are as follows:

4.       Thereafter, the Complainant was informed vide letter dated 16.05.1994, that in view of certain problems, the Respondent  Authority was unable to allot a house in Rachna HIG (S/S) in Indirapuram and requested him to take another plot of 150 sq. mtr. @ ₹1320/- per sq. mtr. in Indirapuram and send his consent by 16.08.1994. The Complainant brought to the notice of the Joint Secretary of the Respondent Authority, vide his letter dated 25.08.1994, that the terminology used namely, “certain problems”  is not convincing and declined to accept the offer of alternative plot. He sought  for reconsideration of the cancellation and requested for allotment of the  house for which he had already made the payment. He repeatedly made representations to the Respondent Authority on 10.10.1994, 02.10.1994, and on 22.10.1994.  Finally, on 01.12.1994, the Respondent Authority replied, informing the Complainant  that he was allotted house No. AK-I/118 under scheme No. 597-12 A HIG (S/S) in lieu of scheme No. 636-11A and that the terms and conditions of the allotment would remain the same. Vide letter dated 18.01.1995, the Complainant was advised that he should deposit all the receipts, in original, for the payments made by him under scheme No. 636-11A.

5.       It was pleaded by the Complainant that as the cost of the house under the new scheme was ₹6,50,000/- as against ₹5,00,000/-  in scheme No. 636-11A, he was not in a position to arrange additional amount to the tune of ₹2,10,000/-. The Complainant sought for refund of the amount deposited by him  and visited the office of the Respondent Authority on 16.11.1994, 29.11.1994, 06.12.1994 and on 03.05.1995. He and his father, aged 70 years, ran from pillar to post to collect the refund. The Complainant met the Chief Financial & Accounts Officer, who informed him that the refund would be given in June, 1995. But, finally, the Respondent Authority refunded ₹2,56,151/-,  on 09.11.1995, as against the total deposit of ₹2,62,501/- thereby forfeiting an amount of  ₹6,350/-, when there was no deficiency on behalf of the Complainant.

6.       The Complainant expressed his displeasure vide letters dated 17.11.1995, 11.03.1996 and 14.05.1996, seeking redressal of his grievances, but the Respondent Authority failed to respond. Hence, the Complainant approached the District Forum seeking direction to the Authority to refund the amount of  ₹6,350/- with interest @ 21%, which was  charged by them in case of default by the allottees, together with compensation of ₹1,50,000/- and other reliefs.

7.       The Respondent Authority filed their Written Version admitting the allotment and also the proposal offering to  the Complainant plot of 150 sq. mtr., vide letter dated 16.05.1994.  It was further pleaded that the refund was made on  the Complainant’s request and the deduction of  ₹6,350/-   was as per the Rules and therefore no deficiency of service could be attributed to them in this regard.

8.       The District forum based on the evidence adduced allowed the Complaint and directed the Respondent Authority to refund the amount deposited by the Complainant with interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of deposit till realization within two months from the date of order, failing which, the Complainant was entitled to receive interest @ 18% p.a.  Cost of ₹2,000/- was also awarded.

9.       Aggrieved by the said order, the Respondent Authority preferred an Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission has allowed the Appeal, observing as follows:

“The answer is bound to figure in negative for the simple reason that the Development Authority offered another house on the same terms and conditions with its right to escalate the price. Escalation in the price indeed, appears to be abnormal i.e. from Rs. 4,44,000.00 to Rs. 6,05,000.00 but since the money has been refunded as per request of the complainant, the said issue does not arise for our determination. The fact remains that the complainant expressed his inability to pay the escalated price and consequently, asked for refund of his money- a request which was conceded to by the Development Authority leaving there no room for any kind of deficiency in service. When the position on the issue was crystal clear, the Development Authority cannot be labelled with any blame.

In the result, as we may hold the instant appeal deserves to succeed.

Accordingly, it is allowed and the impugned judgement is set aside. The complaint of the complainant being barred by principal of estoppel and acquiescence stands dismissed.

The complainant shall refund the money he has received on account of the interest which was paid to him during the course of execution proceedings in compliance to the judgment which has now been quashed. He shall do so within 45 days failing which the Ghaziabad Development Authority shall be at liberty to recover it by moving execution petition before the Forum concerned.

In the circumstances of this case the parties shall bear their own costs.”

10.     Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner was a serving Colonel in the Indian Army, and despite being posted in Bihar and at Srinagar, he was forced to visit the office of the Respondent Authority on 16.11.1994, 29.11.1994, 06.12.1994 and on  03.05.1995 for seeking refund of  ₹2,62,501/-. Similarly, his father, then aged about 70 years, also visited the office of the Respondent Authority several times. The Petitioner was finally paid an amount of ₹2,56,151/-  after forfeiture of a sum of ₹6,350/-. The Petitioner served a legal notice on 22.06.1996 seeking interest on the amount deposited by him from time to time alongwith payment of the amount forfeited. The learned counsel for the Petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in  HUDA Vs. Rajnish Chander Sharde, (2004)5 SCC 87, wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court granted interest @ 18% p.a., inter-alia holding that in cases where money was being simply returned, the parties suffered a monetary loss as they had deposited the money in the hope of getting a flat. It was argued that as the Complainant was deprived of the flat, and also the benefit of escalation of the price of the flat, he was entitled to compensation for the monetary loss and for the mental agony suffered.

11.     We observe from the record that the District Forum, on 06.01.2000, has  allowed the Complaint and directed the Respondent Authority to pay to the Petitioner herein interest on all the deposits @ 10% p.a. The Authority did not comply with the order and an Execution Application was filed in September, 2000.  In the meantime the Respondent Authority filed an Appeal before the State Commission but, did not get any stay order. During the Execution  proceedings before The District Forum,  the Petitioner was paid the  entire decretal amount of ₹1,29,000/-   but thereafter, he had  refunded the said interest amount  as per the directions of the State Commission.    

12.     It is pertinent to note that the Petitioner herein had specifically pleaded for refund of the amount on the ground that the price of the plot in the changed scheme was enhanced to ₹6,50,000/-  and that it was beyond his financial capacity to pay for the same. It is not in dispute that though the Complainant had repeatedly, lastly on 10.02.1995, asked for the refund of his amount of  ₹2,62,501/- which was deposited between the years 1992 to 1994, only an amount of ₹2,56,151/-  was refunded on 06.11.1995,  forfeiting  ₹6,350/-.  The Respondent Authority in their Written Version did not deny either the change of the scheme or the request by the Complainant for the refund as far back as  on 10.02.1995 and also that the refund was finally made only on 06.11.1995.  The District forum rightly concluded  that the Respondent Authority did not plead in their Written Version that the Complainant had not deposited the amount with the Respondent Authority as detailed by him in the Complaint.

12. Though in the past, this Commission has also awarded compensation in the form of interest at a rate higher than 10% per annum, but considering the recent trend of falling interest rates, erosion in the value of real estate, grant of compensation in the form of interest, in our view, award of interest @ 10% per annum will be appropriate. We are therefore, of the considered view that the Petitioner herein is entitled to interest @10% p.a., as awarded by the District Forum, from the date of each deposit till the date of realization. However, the default interest awarded by the District Forum @ 18% p.a. is on the higher side and the same is reduced to 12% p.a.

13.     In the result, the Revision Petition is partly allowed setting aside the order of the State Commission and restoring the order of the  District Forum, with the aforenoted modifications. Additionally, the Respondent Authority is also directed to pay costs of  ₹20,000/- to the Revision Petitioner  within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.