This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Sunita Goel challenging the order dated 14th December 2016 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana, (in short ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 786 of 2016.

2.      Brief facts relevant for the disposal of the present revision petition are that the petitioner/complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum alleging deficiency against the respondent/opposite party for not paying interest on the amount of Rs.66,800/- which was deposited by the petitioner with the opposite party as interest bearing maintenance security on 9th July,2010. In fact, the complainant had purchased a unit in the project of the opposite party for which the conveyance deed had already been registered in the year 2013. The complainant demanded 18% interest on this amount as no interest was indicated at the time of deposit nor the opposite party paid any interest.

3.      The complaint was resisted by the opposite party mainly on the ground that all the issues were amicably settled before the permanent Lok Adalat vide its order dated 12th March 2014 and therefore nothing was left to be settled between the parties.

4.      The District Forum, however, allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to pay interest at the rate 9% on the amount of Rs.66,800/- from the date of deposit along with a compensation of Rs.2100/- and cost of litigation as Rs.1100/-.

5.      Not satisfied with the order of the District Forum, the complainant preferred an appeal before the State Commission and the State Commission vide its order dated 14th December 2016 dismissed the appeal.

6.      Hence the present revision petition by the complainant petitioner.

7.      The petitioner has sent a letter stating that she would not be able to attend the proceedings in the Commission, however, she has sent the written arguments. Her main argument is that she had demanded 18% interest on this amount in the complaint whereas the District Forum has given only 9% interest per annum and the State Commission has also wrongly endorsed the same. It is stated in the submissions that the only point involved in the present revision petition is that the complainant should also be allowed interest at the rate 18% per annum instead of 9% per annum as ordered by the District Forum and confirmed by the State Commission. Both the fora below have ignored the provision of Real Estate Regulation and Development Act 2016 clause 2ZA where it is clearly mentioned that the rate of interest chargeable from the allottee by the promoter in case of default shall be equal to the rate of interest which the promoter shall be liable to pay to the allottee in case of default. It has also been mentioned that on the principle of parity and natural justice, the same rate of interest should be allowed as the promoter is charging on the delayed installments.

8.      I have carefully considered the arguments that have been raised in the written submissions sent by the petitioner complainant and have examined the record on file. Even though all the issues were settled between the parties before the permanent Lok Adalat, still the District Forum has given relief to the complainant because the amount was deposited as interest bearing maintenance security which implied that some kind of interest will be paid on this amount. As no interest rate has been mentioned by the opposite party, the District Forum has given 9% per annum interest on this amount and the State Commission has also agreed with the same. There seems to be no question of applicability of clause 2ZAof the Real Estate Regulation and Development Act 2016 because the provision is only applicable when there is some default and then payment is to be made. In the present case, there is no default on the part of the opposite party as there is no amount which was to be paid to the complainant but has not been paid as per the agreement. The amount of deposit was an advance deposit for maintenance and this was not to be paid by the opposite party rather it was to be paid by the complainant and the same has been paid to the opposite party. The opposite party was to give some interest on this amount which was not clearly settled between the parties. The District Forum has given 9% per annum interest on this amount which seems reasonable. Clearly, provision of section 2ZA of the Real Estate Regulation and Development Act 2016 is not applicable for this amount. 

9.      Based on the above examination, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order dated 14th December 2016 of the State Commission which calls for any interference from this Commission. Consequently, the revision petition No. 1086 of 2017 is dismissed in limine.