Sahara India Pariwar Housing Unit, petitioner herein, was the opposite party before the District Forum.

          Respondent/complainant became the member of Swarn/Rajat Yojna (Scheme 3 BDR-Duplex Type-D) of the petitioner for assured allotment of house at Chandigarh by the end of 2007 and deposited Rs.3,73,080/- with the petitioner vide receipts dated 15.12.2004, 31.12.2004, 21.3.2005, 29.4.2005 and 15.6.2005. 

-2-

Complainant/respondent contacted the petitioner a number of times and also wrote letters for the allotment of the house, but the petitioner had not even able to start the construction.  Respondent filed the complaint before the District Forum on 30.3.2009.

          District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to refund the sum of Rs.3,73,080/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of deposit of the last installment i.e. 15.6.2005 till the date of realization, Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.

          Not satisfied with the order passed by the District Forum, petitioner filed the appeal before the State Commission, which has been dismissed by the impugned order.

Counsel for the petitioner relying upon two judgments of this Commission in “Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority & Anr. Vs. Krishan Pal Chander, I(2010) CPJ 99 (NC) and “HUDA vs. Darshan Singh, III (2010) CPJ 189 (NC)” contends that the respondent was not a Consumer.  We do not find any substance in this submission.  The facts of both the abovementioned cases are totally different.  In those cases, the complainants had simply applied

-3-

for the allotment whereas in the present case, the respondent had become a member of Swarn/Rajat yojna (Scheme 3 BDR-Duplex Type-D) for assured allotment of house at Chandigarh and had paid the sum of Rs.3,73,080/-.  By the impugned order, the fora below have directed the petitioner to refund the amount which was deposited by the complainant, along with interest @ 9% p.a. for deriving the respondent of the use of her money for all this time.  Rs.50,000/- have been awarded by way of compensation for the undue harassment caused to the respondent throughout this period.  In our considered view, the fora below have rightly directed the petitioner to refund the sum of Rs.3,73,080/- which had been deposited by the respondent.  The interest @ 9% p.a. for depriving the respondent of the use of her money for all this time, is moderate and appropriate.  The sum of Rs.50,000/- awarded by way of compensation for the undue harassment is also appropriate.  Prices of real estate have risen substantially.  Compensation of Rs.50,000/- cannot be terms as excessive or unjust.

          Another point raised by the counsel for the petitioner was that the respondent had in fact deposited only Rs.2,72,814/- and not

-4-

Rs.3,73,080/-.  Both the fora below on the basis of evidence produced on record, have come to the conclusion that the respondent had deposited Rs.3,73,080/-.  We have also gone through the receipts Annexure C-1 and C-2 issued by the petitioner to the respondent/complainant.  On going through the same, we are satisfied that the respondent had in fact deposited the sum of Rs.3,73,080/- with the petitioner.

            For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in this revision petition.  Dismissed.