PER JUSTICE R.C.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

            Challenge in these proceedings is to the order dated 23.05.2007 passed by the UP State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Lucknow in Appeal No. 2890/SC/2003 and 2891/SC/2003. The appeals before the State Commission were filed by the petitioner – Parishad against the order dated 22.07.2003 passed by the District Consumer Forum Agra (First) by which order the District Forum directed the opposite party to make allotment of the house within 45 days from the date of passing of the order or in the alternative to refund the deposited amount of Rs.10000/- in each case alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. and sum of Rs.1000/- as damages. In appeal, the State Commission has partly allowed the appeal and upheld the direction of the District Forum for refund of the deposited amount to the two respondents and reduced the rate of interest from 12% p.a. to 10% p.a. from the date of deposit till the payment was made and set aside the main relief in regard to the allotment of the  house.

            We have heard counsel for the parties and have considered their submissions. The facts and circumstances which led to the filing of the complaint are amply noted in the orders of the fora below and need no repetition at our end.  The complainants got registered themselves with the Vikas Parishad for allotment of the house by depositing a sum of Rs.10000/- each but were unsuccessful in draw of lots and therefore, claimed refund of the amount which was not promptly refunded and therefore,  complaints were filed.  The complaints were resisted on the ground that complainants were not successful in the draw of lots and had not formally applied for the refund of the amount and so the amount could not be refunded.

            It is pertinent to note that when the matter came up for hearing for the first time on 12.02.2008 before this Commission, this Commission made the following order:

“Heard the ld. Counsel for the petitioner.  It is submitted that since the complainant / respondent did not apply for refund of the amount deposited by him, he was not entitled for any interest even @ 6% p.a  as provided in the Rules and that too after 22 years.  A person who deposited the amount expecting allotment of a house, might have expected that in case he was not successful in one of the draw of lots, his name would be considered in another draw of lots and he might have succeeded.  The fact is that his name has not been considered during the last 22 years and his money was not paid back speaks volumes.  Filing of complaint by him should itself be deemed sufficient to say that atleast the complainant demanded the deposited amount and the amount should have been offered to him alongwith interest as per Rules.

          In terms of Regulation 7 of the Parishad, as shown to us by the ld. Counsel for the petitioner, the complainant is entitled for interest @ 6% p.a. The said Regulation 7 is reproduced as under:-

          All registration deposits will carry simply interest at 6% p.a. which will be payable or adjustable from the first day of the month following the date of credit to the Board’s account upto the close of the  month preceding the date of withdrawal or adjustment towards the price of the property allotted to the registered applicant.

          In view of the aforesaid Regulation 7 the petitioner should show its bonafide atleast by paying  interest 6% to the Complainant.

          Admit.  Issue notice to the respondent limited to the point of interest over and above @ 6% p.a. returnable on 3.09.08.

          Operation of the impugned order is stayed so far it relates to payment of interest over and above 6% subject to payment of amount deposited by the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% within a period of four weeks.

            Counsel for the petitioner states at the Bar that direction given in the said order have been complied with but counsel for the respondent in RP No. 606 of 2008 denies that the directions have been complied with in respect of the said respondent

            Counsel for the petitioner contends that as per the Regulation 7 (supra) quoted in the order of this  Commission, the respondents were entitled to simple interest not more than 6 % p.a. for the period the money was not refunded and grant of interest @ 12% p.a. by the District Forum and 10% p.a. by the State Commission cannot be justified. We find force in this contention because going by the stipulation contained in the Regulation 7, we are of the view that fora below were not justified in awarding interest of more than 6% p.a. on the deposited amount.  The order needs to be modified accordingly.   

            In the result, the revision petitions are partly allowed and the order of the State Commission shall stand modified to the extent that petitioner is liable to pay interest @ 6% p.a.on the deposited amount from the date of deposit till its payment.  However, going by the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we however, enhance the amount of compensation towards harassment etc. from Rs.1000/- to Rs.2500/- in each case.  The direction shall be complied within six weeks positively failing which the entire awarded amount shall carry interest @ 12% p.a.