JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

          The complainant/respondent was allotted a residential flat in an auction held by the petitioner.  Vide allotment letter dated 04.10.2013, he was asked to pay a sum of Rs.45,05,122/- within 30 days.  There was a mistake in the aforesaid letter since the flat was described as commercial land.  The petitioner therefore, issued a revised allotment letter dated 14.10.2013, requiring the complainant to deposit the balance amount of Rs.45,05,122/- within 30 days.  It was further stated in the said letter that if the complainant failed to deposit the above mentioned amount within the fixed time period, it could be deposited with the prior permission of the Chairman of the Board after following the prescribed procedure.  On getting the permission, the complainant was required to pay interest @ 15% per annum and penalty of 5%.  Only thereafter, the auction was to be regularized.   

2.      The complainant, vide letter dated 07.11.2013, sought extension of time to deposit the aforesaid amount.  The said extension however, was granted only on 06.01.2014, granting him time till 30.01.2014 to make the payment.  The complainant deposited the said amount.  He was asked to deposit the interest amount and penalty amount alongwith service charges of Rs.45,052/-.  Being aggrieved, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint. 

3.      The complaint was resisted by the petitioner primarily on the ground that the complainant having delayed the payment of the balance amount, he was liable to pay the interest, penalty as well as the processing fee/service charges. 

4.      The District Forum allowed the complaint only to the extent of refund of Rs.45,052/-. The complainant was also awarded compensation of Rs.7,000/- and the cost of litigation quantified at Rs.3,000/-.  Being aggrieved, the complainant approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal.  The State Commission, vide impugned order dated 19.07.2017, directed refund of Rs.1,09,268/- + Rs.2,25,257/-.

5.      Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission, the petitioner is before this Commission by way of this revision petition. 

6.      It is not in dispute that in terms of the revised allotment letter issued to the complainant on 14.10.2013, he was required to pay the balance amount of Rs.45,05,122/- within 30 days of the said letter.  The amount therefore, ought to have been deposited by 13.11.2013.  However, instead of depositing the said amount within the time stipulated in the letter, the complainant sought extension of time though the extension was sought before expiry of the time limit for depositing the balance amount.  The extension having been granted, he was required to pay not only 1% processing fee but also interest @ 15% per annum and penalty of 5%.

7.      The contention of the learned counsel for the complainant is that it was the petitioner which delayed the grant of extension of time to deposit the balance amount and as a result, the application of the complainant for loan could not be processed by the bank.  In my view, since no time limit was fixed for taking a decision on the application seeking extension of time to deposit the balance amount, no benefit of the delay in processing the said application accrued to the benefit of the complainant.  As and when the application for extension was allowed, the complainant was required to deposit the balance amount alongwith interest @ 15% per annum, penalty of 5% as well the processing fee of 1%.  As far as the processing fee is concerned, that having been already deposited, the issue remained only in respect of the interest and penalty which the complainant had initially deposited but had later on sought refund through the District Forum. 

8.      To look at the issue from another angle, the complainant utilized the amount which it ought to have deposited by 13.11.2013, till 10.01.2014, when the said amount was deposited.  Therefore, there is no reason why he should not pay interest on that amount despite having used it for his own purpose. 

9.      For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside.  The order passed by the District Forum is consequently restored.  The revision petition stands disposed of.  The fee of Amicus Curiae be paid as per rules.