PER JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) Aggrieved by the order dated 11.10.2007 passed by the Orissa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack (for short the -2- ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 851 of 2007, the Bhubaneswar Development Authority (the opposite party in the complaint before the District Forum) has filed the present petition. The State Commission has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner herein against the order dated 31.07.2007 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Khurda, Bhubaneswar, with the following observations: “The applicant is a statutory authority. Merely because there is a provision of appeal under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, it should not have filed this appeal for the sake of filing. We were inclined to impose cost on the appellant for indulging in such frivolous litigation, but we refrain from doing so by administering warning to it. 2. By the impugned order, the District Forum has directed the complainant-respondent to pay rupees 26,942.16 towards interest for delayed payment of installments and to close the account lying against shop room No. S-25 allotted to the respondent on receipt of the above amount. No adverse view has been taken in the matter against the appellant. Therefore we dismiss the appeal at the stage of admission.” 2. We have heard the counsel for the parties and have considered their submissions. Aggrieved by the demand of sum of Rs. 67,975/- made by the petitioner-Authority herein vide their demand letter dated 26.7.2005, the complainant filed the complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner. The complaint was resisted maintaining that the demand raised by the petitioner-Authority was strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement -3- entered between the parties. The District Forum however, partly allowed the complaint and directed the complainant to pay a sum of
Rs. 26,942.16 to the petitioner-Authority towards the interest for the delayed payment of installments within one month from the date of the communication of the said order. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the said order filed the appeal before the state Commission and the State Commission dismissed the appeal. Hence this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would assail the impugned order passed by the State Commission firstly on the ground that it has given no reasons for dismissing the appeal and secondly that the observations made by the State Commission were not called for as the petitioner was within its right to assail the order of the District Forum, which in the opinion of the petitioner authority was not justified. On the other hand counsel for the respondent submits that pursuant to the directions given by the District Forum, the respondent has already deposited a sum of Rs. 27,000/- with the petitioner-Authority, which in his opinion was the amount of interest which the petitioner-Authority could not have charged from the complainant on account of delay-default in payment of some of the installments. He also submits that even if there is any mistake in the calculation of the interest, the respondent is ready to pay the balance -4- amount if the interest on the default installment is calculated @ 18.5% (simple interest and not the penal interest) in terms of Clause 6 of the agreement dated 17.6.1996 executed between the parties. We also think that this is the only solution of the dispute because the petitioner cannot charge any penal interest from the respondent as the agreement between the parties, provide only for charging of simple interest @ 18.5% and not the penal interest. 4. In view of the foregoing discussions, we partly allow the revision petition and direct the petitioner-Authority to re-haul the account of the respondent, thereby calculating the interest on the defaulted installments and for the default period by calculating the interest @ 18.5% on the amount of unpaid installments up till the date of the order of the District Forum i.e. 31.7.2007 after adjusting the amount of Rs. 27,000/- deposited by the respondent. On doing so, if any, further amount is found to be payable, the said amount shall be paid by the respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of the receipt of the demand letter. If no amount is found payable or on payment of the demanded amount, the petitioner-Authority shall issue a “No Dues” certificate in favour of the respondent. -5- With these observations, the revision petition is disposed of. | 
