1.       Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order dated 27-03-2015 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) by which the appeal preferred by the petitioners herein has been dismissed and the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North 24 Parganas, Barasat (hereinafter referred to as ‘the District Forum’) has been affirmed. The State Commission while dismissing the appeal has held as follows:

          “We have heard the submission made by both sides and perused the papers on record. As per the terms and conditions of the brochure possession was to be delivered by the end of 2008 after completion of the flats including the common facilities. The flat was allotted to the complainant vide letter dated 28/06/05. By letter dated 16/08/07 the OP informed the complainant that under compelling circumstances the facilities, namely, swimming pool, auditorium, etc., could not be made available to the allottees. The complainant wrote several letters to the OP. The complainant vide letter dated June 26, 2009 informed the OP that she had no objection against withdrawal of facilities or shifting of the sight, but in that case the OP will not impose any penalty against the complainant. No reply to the said letter appears to have been given by the OP/Appellant. It further appears that on 24/12/12 the Complainant had sent a cheque of Rs.1 lakh vide Annexure – E to the BNA filed by the Respondent, but the OP/Appellant by letter dated 07/03/13 refused to accept the same. The OP/Appellant on 02/04/12 had sent a letter to the complainant demanding Rs.3,09,601/-. It is evident that the OP/Appellant failed to deliver the flat within the stipulated time, that is, December 2008. Such failure itself suggests deficiency in service on the part of the OP/Appellant. Under the circumstances aforesaid, we are of the considered view that the learned District Forum was justified in passing the impugned judgment and order.”

2.       The findings have been recorded by the State Commission on the basis of appreciation of facts and evidence, which does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity so as to warrant any interference in the revisional jurisdiction. However, we find that the District Forum has ordered for payment of penal interest at the rate of Rs.400/- per day to be paid in the account of State Consumer Welfare Fund. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that this imposition of penal interest will adversely affect and be harsh on the petitioners. We, therefore, set aside the order directing payment of penal interest at the rate of Rs.400/- per day.

3.       With the aforesaid observation, the revision petition stands dismissed.