1.       This complaint has been instituted by the Army Welfare Housing Organisation that had been allocated a plot of 30 acres for a housing society for its members by the Meerut Development Authority, opposite party herein.  There is no dispute on this fact that the complainant made the entire deposit of the amount that was demanded by the opposite party.  The allotment letter is dated 28.10.1989 and the amount paid by the complainant is Rs.3,82,41,541/-.

2.       The land could not be handed over for certain reasons, litigations and the existence of an overhead electricity transmission line of 33 KV and 132 KV.  The complainant attempted a negotiation for allotment of a different plot and also requested for removal of the transmission lines in order to take possession and develop the land.  Unfortunately, all this negotiation and attempts failed and the present complaint was lodged on 18.12.1997.  However, the complaint came to be admitted in 2002 and that is how the case number of this complaint has been registered as Original Petition No.335 of 2002.   

3.       The contention of the complainant is that it is a welfare organisation for no profits or profiteering or earning any profits out of the activities of the society.  In the given circumstances, when the complainant failed to get possession, the present complaint was lodged.

4.       Since the controversy has now narrowed down only to the direction of refund, to which there is no objection by the other side regarding the principal amount, the only dispute which has to be resolved is about the rate of interest and the period for which such interest should be granted.

5.       With this short dispute surviving as contended by the learned counsel for the parties, it would be appropriate to refer to the order sheets and the orders passed from time to time in the present complaint.  The affidavits were exchanged between the parties and the evidence affidavits were also filed.  There were some minor defaults in this process for which costs were imposed and then the arguments gradually proceeded.

6.       An amendment application was filed in between and a miscellaneous application was also filed seeking refund of the amount along with interest. Another development took place, namely, vide three cheques dated 14.02.2007, the opposite party had tendered refund of the entire principal amount with 9% interest that was declined and returned by the complainant.

7.       A letter dated 05.09.2007 was received by the complainant from the opposite party whereby it sought realization of an enhanced rate for the land and other demands or to receive the refund of the principal amount with 9% interest.  This was far beyond the demand which had been made under the terms of the original allotment.  The complainant declined to pay the said enhanced demand and in July 2008 MA No. 185 of 2008 was filed seeking amendment in the complaint to the effect that possession of 30 acres of land be granted and the additional demands made on 05.09.2007 be quashed.  The complainant also sought interest @ 18% per annum on the principal amount already deposited under the terms of the allotment. 

8.       The amendment application was allowed by the Commission vide order dated 26.10.2009 which is extracted hereunder:   

“This order will govern the disposal of MA Nos. 144 of 2006, 185 of 2008 filed by the complainant and MA No. 56 of 2007 moved by the opposite party – Authority.

MA Nos. 144 of 2006 and 185 of 2008 are the applications seeking amendments in the complaint which are being contested by filing replies by the opposite party – Authority.  Since the two amendments in the prayer clause of the complaint sought in MA No. 144 of 2006 are similar to the amendments sought in prayer clauses (1) & (3) except minor variation as to the period for which interest is to be paid on deposited amount of MA No. 185 of 2008, we are referring to MA No. 185 of 2008.  In para No. 17 of the application, it is alleged that complainant be allowed to amend the complaint by adding the statement of facts and submission as stated in para Nos. 1,4 & 16 and to substitute the prayer clause in the following manner:-

(1)     Direct the opposite party and it’s officials along with the District Magistrate and Police Authorities to evict the farmers (who are tilling the land ever since the same has been allotted) and in the presence of the aforesaid authorities, had over the physical possession of the land and continue to give police protection to the officials of the complainant including it’s contractor and it’s employees for a period of 18 months from the farmers and undesirable elements from the date of handing over the physical possession till the complainant erects a wall around the land in question; and direct the respondent to give land equivalent to the area affected by the HT line running across the plot allotted to the complainant.

(2)     Quash the respondent(s) from raising the demand dated 05^th September, 2007 as the same being illegal, malafide, arbitrary and contrary to the terms of allotment of the land in question.

(3)     Award a sum of compensation in favour of the complainant and against the respondent by awarding interest @ 18% p.a. on the cost of the land amounting to Rs.3,82,41,541.00 (Rupees Three Crores Eighty Two Lacs Forty One Thousand Five Hundred and Forty One only) from the date of payment i.e. from Dec, 1989 till the handing over of the possession of the land in terms of Prayer (1) above.

(4)     Cost of the complainant estimated at Rs.1,50,000.00.

(5)     Any other orders as may be deemed fit may also be passed in favour of the complainant herein.

It is stated that complainant has received a letter dated 5.9.2007 from the opposite party seeking enhancement of cost @ 1.5 times the prevailing cost @ Rs.3095/- per sq. mt. apart from the location charges @ 12% of the cost of land towards free hold conversion charges on total cost.  The opposite party in this letter has further insisted that either the complainant pay the enhanced cost of land or take back the cost of land paid by the complainant with interest @ 9% p.a. thereon.  Alongwith the application, copy of the said letter dated 5.9.2007 has been filed.

Opposing the amendment applications, the contention advanced by Shri Vijay Hansaria, Sr. Adv. for the opposite party-Authority was than in the complaint only the refund of the deposited amount with interest was claimed which the opposite party refunded with interest by means of three cheques all dated 14.2.2007 to the complainant which it had returned.  The reliefs claimed by seeking amendments are barred by Order II Rule 2 C.P.C.  Letter dated 5.9.2007 furnished a fresh cause of action for which a separate complaint would lie.  Reliefs claimed are also barred by limitation and the prayer as at (1) above is not within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Reliance was placed on the decisions in Vijendra Kumar Goel Vs. Kusum Bhuwania (Smt.), (1997) II SCC 457; Radhika Devi Vs. Bajrangi Singh & Ors., (1996) 7 SCC 486; Vishwambhar & Ors. Vs. Laxminarayan (dead) through LRs & Anr., (2001) 6 SCC 163 and Vidyabai & Ors. Vs. Padmalatha & Anr. 2009(1) Scale 202.  As may be seen from the prayer made in the complaint which though bears the date of 18.12.1997, but was received in Registry on 13.5.1999, the complainant had sought direction to the opposite party – Authority to refund the deposited amount of Rs.3,82,41,541.00 with interest @ 18% p.a. from January, 1991.  In the written version filed on 3.11.2003, the opposite party – Authority contested the claim for refund of the said amount with interest.  Fate of the applications on hand largely hinges on the letter dated 5.9.2007 which it incorporates subsequent event in connection with the release/allotment of 30 acres of land at Shatabdi Nagar, Meerut at the enhanced rate to the complainant by the Authority.  In our view, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings such subsequent event can be taken note of and the complainant permitted to amend the complaint accordingly.  Complainant can not be denied the proposed amendments on the ground of its being barred by Order II Rule 2 C.P.C. or the aforesaid letter furnishing a fresh cause of action for which a new complaint would lie or the applications being barred by limitation.  To be only noted that Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable to consumer fora.  Afore said decisions pertain to the Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. which forms part of C.P.C.

As regards objection regarding part of the prayer at S.No. (1) above for evicting the farmers who are tilling part of the allotted land, with the assistance of District Magistrate and Police authorities, the case of the Authority is that it is in possession of that land and has developed it.  That being so, on establishing this assertion to the satisfaction of this Commission, the Commission may decline to accede to the said prayer of the complainant. Applications are, therefore, allowed and complainant is permitted to amend the complaint as prayed for in MA No. 185 of 2008 but subject to deposit of Rs.5,000/- as cost to be deposited in Consumer Legal-Aid Account within three weeks.

Amended complaint stands filed.  Written version limited to the amendment allowed be filed by the opposite party-Authority within four weeks.

This brings us to aforesaid MA No. 56 of 2007.  Direction claimed in this application is that the complainant be directed to accept the refund of the principal amount with interest @ 9% p.a. till the complaint is finally decided.  Admittedly, amount of Rs.8,98,66,037/- towards principal and interest at the said rate was refunded by the Authority to the complainant by means of three cheques all dated 14.2.2007 which it declined to encash and returned.  Since the complainant is not interested in the refund of the amount with interest, no direction can be passed to compel it to receive that amount.  Accordingly, the application is dismissed.

List on 15.12.2009.”   

9.       Consequently, the opposite party was called upon to file a written version to the amendment.  This order also records that an amount of Rs.8,98,66,037/- was offered as refund through several cheques towards the principal amount and interest @ 9%.  The said three cheques were dated 14.02.2007 but the complainant declined to accept the same which were returned.  The application filed by the opposite party for a direction to the complainant to receive the amount was disallowed.  We are mentioning this fact as this is also relevant for one of the arguments advanced on behalf of the opposite party.     

10.     The opposite party filed Civil Appeal No. 4463 of 2010 against the above order that was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 13.05.2010.

11.     The complaint did not proceed thereafter as adjournments ruled the roster and ultimately a meeting was held between the Vice Chairman of the opposite party and the complainant on 13.06.2017 to discuss a possible settlement. In that meeting a demand of Rs.43.69 Crores was raised from the complainant that was alleged to be contrary to the standards being applied on an adjacent 5 acre similar plot in favour of Indian Railway Welfare Organisation.  The complainant contends that an option of Rs.5,00,000/- per acre was offered and demanded from the Railway Welfare Organisation but the complainant was discriminated and was called upon to satisfy this huge demand of Rs.43.69 Crores which was not acceptable.

12.     Consequently, vide letter dated 11.07.2017 and then on 30.10.2017 the complainant again reiterated its stand for refund.  Learned counsel has relied on several judgments seeking support from the pronouncements of the Apex Court and this Commission in order to receive refund along with interest @ 18%.  

13.     This claim of refund is being resisted by the counsel for the opposite party principally on the ground that the rate of interest being demanded by the complainant is not only exorbitant but contrary to all norms.  The rate of interest which is permissible as per the norms of the opposite party is 4% per annum and the rate of 9% interest that was offered by the letter dated 05.09.2007 and tendered through the three cheques in the year 2007 that was returned by the complainant, disentitles it from receiving any other rate of interest.  It is submitted that the refund had already been tendered on 14.02.2007 through cheques, and in spite of being returned, was reiterated through the letter dated 05.09.2007, and therefore even if the refund is allowed, the same should not carry interest beyond the said dates as it is the complainant who has been changing its stand by seeking amendments and then again repeating its request for refund.  It is therefore urged that this vacillating stand of the complainant and the aforesaid fact of refund already offered by the opposite party cannot be ignored and the complainant cannot benefit out of its own inaction.

14.     Learned counsel for the opposite party however very fairly stated that the opposite party is still prepared for all the three options of either handing over possession of the land already allotted or even considering negotiations or offering refund.  In these circumstances, no relief of any interest should be extended to the complainant.

15.     The undisputed facts are that the principal amount paid as indicated above was handed over under the terms of allotment.  The amount remained in the custody of the opposite party and the possession of the land could not be handed over for one reason or the other till today.  The complaint was filed as indicated above more than a quarter century ago even though it was registered in the year 2002.  The litigation and the subsequent events clearly disclose that the complainant was desirous of getting this dispute concluded and had also attempted a settlement but the same could not be brought about due to the enhanced demands raised by the opposite party and because the possession of the land could not be handed over due to pending litigation or otherwise free from all encumbrances.  The complainant was therefore left with no options seeking the relief of refund even though it had sought an amendment for taking possession of the land which has now been given up, and the only relief prayed for is that the refund be allowed with interest. 

16.     As noted above, learned counsel for the opposite party does not deny the receipt of the principal amount and also does not seriously dispute the claim of refund but he contends that the rate of interest of 18% cannot be granted and even otherwise he has no instructions to offer any interest beyond the rate of 4% which is now permissible on refund under the regulations of the opposite party.  The contention is that the previous tender of refund on 14.02.2007 together with 9% interest and subsequently mentioned in the letter dated 05.09.2007 was with a view to close the dispute but it is the complainant who backed out.  This Commission also disallowed the application of the opposite party.  The aforesaid contention to the extent that the complainant sought an amendment and wanted possession of the land is correct.  However, the fact remains that the opposite party on being unable to hand over possession of the land as offered, had offered refund with 9% interest per annum.  Thus, the opposite party itself having tendered the cheques offering 9% interest and vide letter dated 05.09.2007 reiterated its similar stand even after the cheques were not accepted by the complainant, confirms that the opposite party was agreeable for paying 9% interest on the principal amount.  Accordingly, this Commission is of the opinion that the rate of interest cannot now be reduced to 4% by the opposite party when it had already stood by its offer of 9% interest in the past.

17.     The impact of refusal to negotiate the cheques issued in February, 2007 and the letter dated 05.09.2007 has now to be considered in order to determine the liability of refund with interest.  It is true that the complainant was in two minds as it sought to seek possession through an amendment application which it gave up later due to non-delivery of possession, even though initially the complaint filed was for refund.  In the said background the complainant had been taking shifting stands but at the same time the money continued to be in deposit with the opposite party with no delivery of possession due to litigation and non-removal of the overhead electricity transmission lines.  The opposite party therefore held that money in trust and even otherwise the complainant is not a profiteering agency.  It is equally true that the opposite party is also an autonomous government body carrying out public welfare activities including allotment of land.  For that matter, the complainant and the opposite party do not stand on any different footings but the fact remains that the principal amount continues to be deposited with the opposite party without delivery of possession of the allotted land.  In such circumstances, the complainant is entitled to its refund that has not been resisted, and when it comes to interest the various pronouncements of the Apex Court and this Commission have been awarding interest @ 9%.  This rate of interest was offered by the opposite party in the past as noted above.  The argument of the learned counsel for the opposite party that they had offered refund in 2007 cannot be a ground to deny refund or even the interest on the amount which admittedly lies in the deposit of the opposite party. 

18.     Consequently, since there is no contest on the refund of the principal amount, this complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to refund the entire principal amount with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of actual payment.  The said amount along with interest be paid to the complainant within a period of three months.  In the event of any default in payment, the rate of interest shall stand enhanced to 12% per annum.

19.     Consequently the complaint is allowed on the above terms.