R.K. AGRAWAL, J., PRESIDENT 1. This Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to the Act), has been filed by Rajasthan Housing Board and its Resident Engineer at Bhiwadi, Alwar, Rajasthan, Opposite Parties in the Complaint under the Act (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioners), against the Order dated 01.06.2016, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in First Appeals No. 454 and 270 of 2015. While First Appeal No.454 of 2015 had been preferred by the Complainant/Respondent herein, First Appeal No. 270 of 2015 had been preferred by the Petitioners herein, against the Order dated 28.01.2015, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur 2nd (hereinafter referred to as the District Commission) in Consumer Complaint 650 of 2009, preferred by the Complainant/Respondent herein. 2. By its Order dated 28.01.2015, the District Commission had accepted the Complaint, preferred by the Complainant/Respondent herein, and directed the Petitioners herein to issue fresh demand notice within one month from the said date, after levying interest @ 12% per annum on the delayed payment and the Complainant/Respondent was directed to make the said payment within one month from the date of the said demand notice, where-after the Petitioners herein were directed to handover possession of House No. 4/21 to the Complainant/Respondent, after carrying necessary repairs, within one month from the date of making the said payment. Further, it was also directed by the District Commission that if the Complainant/Respondent fails to deposit the aforesaid amount, then allotment made in his favour shall be treated as cancelled after expiry of one month and in such a situation the amount already deposited by him shall be refunded by the Petitioners with 6% interest per annum. However, by the Impugned Order, the State Commission dismissed the Appeal, preferred by the Petitioners, and allowed the Appeal, preferred by the Complainant/Respondent, directing the Petitioners herein to raise the demand only after levying interest @ 6%. Rest of the Order passed by the District Commission was confirmed. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the Case are that in the year 1982 the Complainant/Respondent had applied for allotment of a house under MIG-B Category in the Residential Scheme, proposed to be built/developed by the Petitioners at Bhiwadi, and had also deposited a sum of Rs.4600/- in this behalf on 30.12.1982. However, the Petitioners did not allot any house to the Complainant/Respondent whereas other similar Applicants were allotted house in the said Category in the year 1985. Thereafter, in the year 1987 a house was allotted to the Complainant/Respondent at Alwar instead of Bhiwadi and, upon objection being made, the mistake was rectified by the Petitioners, by including his name in the list of Bhiwadi and giving him the priority of 1987 instead of 1982. Thereafter, as demanded by the Petitioners, the Complainant/Respondent paid the installment. It was informed to the Complainant/Respondent in the year 1999 that no house was available in MIG-B Category. Then, the Complainant/Respondent applied for change of Category from MIG-B to HIG and on 30.06.1999 he was allotted house No. 4/21 in HIG Category in Housing Colony, Bhiwadi and was asked to deposit Rs.9,17,115.35. The Complainant/Respondent objected as regards cost of the house by filing Consumer Complaint No. 298 of 2006 and First Appeal No.857 of 2007 but the same were dismissed by the District Commission and the State Commission vide Orders dated 27.02.2007 and 29.06.2007 respectively. 4. Thereafter, on 17.08.2007 a letter was issued by the Petitioners to the Complainant/Respondent, asking him to deposit the amount due, failing which the allotment would be cancelled, and the said letter was replied to by his one of the tenants as he was out of India, requesting the Petitioners not to cancel the allotment. As the due amount was not deposited by the Complainant/Respondent despite repeated requests and reminders, allotment was cancelled by the Petitioners vide letter dated 15.09.2007. 5. Thereafter, a request for restoration of the allotment was made by the Complainant/Respondent and in this behalf Consumer Complaint No. 1509 of 2007 was also filed before the District Commission, which vide Order dated 04.04.2008 directed that allotment should be restored within one month and thereafter on representation by the Complainant/Respondent a demand notice be sent to him as per rules. On 29.07.2009, the Petitioners restored the allotment and demanded an amount of Rs.27,38,400/- with 18% - 20% interest. 6. In the opinion of the Complainant/Respondent, interest being levied by the Petitioners was excessive and, therefore, he filed Consumer Complaint No. 650 of 2009 before the District Commission on the said ground. As stated above, vide its Order dated 28.01.2015, the District Commission directed the Petitioners to issue the demand notice within a period of one month from the said date after levying interest @ 12% per annum on the delayed payment and also issued certain other directions. Feeling aggrieved with the said Order, both the Parties filed their respective Appeals before the State Commission and the State Commission by the Impugned Order dismissed the Appeal, preferred by the Petitioners, and allowed the Appeal, preferred by the Complainant/Respondent, directing the Petitioners to levy interest @ 6% on the delayed payment whereas rest of the Order dated 28.01.2015 passed by the District Commission was confirmed. Hence, the present Revision Petition by the Petitioners. 7. We have heard learned Counsel for the Parties and have perused the Orders passed by the State Commission and the District Commission, grounds taken in the Memo of Revision Petition and the documents filed along with it. 8. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners stated that the Petitioner Housing Board is a statutory body, formed under the Rajasthan Housing Board Act, 1970, and has been delegated power to frame rules, regulations and issue notifications, inter alia, with regard to rate of interest to be imposed on delayed payment. Accordingly, notification, imposing 20% interest in this behalf, which was subsequently reduced to 18%, was issued by the Petitioners. As the allotment made to the Complainant/Respondent is governed by the said rules, regulations and notifications, the Complainant/Respondent cannot contend that the said rules, regulations etc. are not applicable upon him. The said rules, regulations etc. have force of law and the Consumer Fora cannot pass any order against the same unless the same are declared as null and void by a Writ Court. In pursuance of the Order dated 04.04.2008 passed by the District Commission, the allotment cancelled was restored, subject to the Complainant/Respondent paying the due restoration fees as per rules, and thereafter a fresh demand notice was issued, as directed by the District Commission. The prayer made in Consumer Complaint No.650 of 2009, seeking a direction to set aside the demand of 18% - 20% interest, as also the Order 28.01.2015 passed by the District Commission in the said Complaint, reducing the interest rate to 12%, and the Impugned Order passed by the State Commission, further reducing the interest rate to 6%, on the delayed payment, are contrary to law and against the Order dated 04.04.2008, which has attained finality as either Party has not challenged the same before the State Commission. The interest rate of 6% as directed by the State Commission for being levied on the delayed payment is less than the interest rate on fixed deposits, which would result in delay of payments to be made by the Allottees/Applicants; investment of the said amount in higher interest bearing accounts; and subsequent payment of the same with nominal interest rate as per their own convenience. Further, as per Revised Procedure for Registration and Allotment of House, 1981, interest @ 15% was prescribed for any delay in making payment by the Allottees/Applicants. In a similar matter being Revision Petition No. 2782 of 2011 (Rajasthan Housing Board Vs. Dr. Narottam Nuwal) this Commission had held that the rate of interest would be as per the Rules of the Housing Board and, therefore, the Impugned Order passed by the State Commission be set aside. 9. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Complainant/Respondent stated that on appreciation of the evidence adduced and on consideration of the documents filed by both the Parties before it, the State Commission has reduced the interest from 12%, as directed by the District Commission, to 6% and, therefore, the present Revision Petition be dismissed. 10. The question to be decided in this Case is whether the interest rate of 6%, to be levied in terms of the Impugned Order on the delayed payment is sustainable or not and whether the Petitioners are entitled to ask for higher interest rate in this regard in view of the rules, regulations etc. framed by them. 11. It cannot be denied that the Petitioner Housing Board is a statutory body and has been delegated powers to frame rules, regulations and issue notifications in the matters concerning its functioning, including on the issue of rate of interest to be imposed on the delayed payments to be made by the Allottees/Applicants and the said rules, regulations etc. have the force of law and the same have to be applied accordingly. In terms of the said rules, regulations etc., the Petitioners seek to levy interest @ 20% per annum, which has been reduced to 18%, on the delayed payment. As regards reducing the interest rate to 15% in terms of Revised Procedure for Registration and Allotment of House, 1981, it is not clear from the record when the said interest rate was made applicable and whether the same is applicable in the case of the Complainant/Respondent or not. There is nothing on record in this behalf. However, even if it is assumed that in terms of the said Revised Procedure, the Complainant/Respondent is required to pay interest @ 15% on the delayed payment, still there is a substantial difference between the said interest rate and the interest rate of 6%, as directed by the State Commission. 12. Insofar as the present Case is concerned, it also cannot be denied that the Complainant/Respondent had initially applied for allotment of a house in the year 1982 in the Residential Scheme to be built/developed by the Petitioners at Bhiwadi and had also paid certain amount therefor; the Petitioners did not allot any house to the Complainant/Respondent whereas similarly placed Applicants were allotted houses in the year 1985; in the year 1987 a house was allotted to the Complainant/Respondent at Alwar instead of Bhiwadi, for which he had applied, and, thereafter, upon objection being made, his name was included in the List meant for Bhiwadi, giving him the priority of 1987, though he had applied for the same in the year 1982; upon being informed by the Petitioners in the year 1999 that no house was available in the category applied for, i.e. MIG-B, at Bhiwadi, the Complainant/Respondent applied for change of category from MIG-B to HIG and then he was allotted the house in question at Bhiwadi and was asked to deposit Rs.9,17,115.35. As stated in the Impugned Order, the Complainant/Respondent had paid the amount of Rs.9,17,166/- though belatedly on 14.02.2005 and now the interest component is to be paid. Thereafter, the matter went into litigation and the aforesaid Orders were passed by the Consumer Fora. 13. As stated in the Impugned Order, this is third round of litigation. Except for the interest component, all other issues are resolved. From a perusal of the record, it is apparent that right from the year 2006 the matter is subjudice on one ground or the other and till date the rate of interest leviable/chargeable by the Petitioners and payable by the Complainant/Respondent on the delayed payment is not decided and, therefore, the interest amount could not be paid by the Complainant/Respondent as there were different view point of the Parties on this issue. Had the Complainant/Respondent been allotted a house by the Petitioners in the year 1985, when the similarly placed Applicants had been allotted houses, there would have been no question of paying any interest either by the Complainant/Respondent in case of delayed payment or by the Petitioners in case of refund. However, allotment of a house was made in favour of the Complainant/Respondent only on 30.06.1999 and he was asked to deposit a sum of Rs.9,17,115.35. As stated above, the amount of Rs.9,17,166/- was deposited by the Complainant/Respondent on 14.02.2005. Thereafter, the allotment made in his favour was cancelled and restored again on 29.07.2009 in terms of the Order dated 04.04.2008 passed by the District Commission in Consumer Complaint No. 1509 of 2007, whereby the District Commission had directed the Petitioners to restore the allotment, subject to payment of restoration fees, and thereafter issue a demand notice as per rules. Then, the Petitioners issued the fresh demand notice, levying interest @ 20% per annum, which had been reduced to 18% per annum. As stated above, there is nothing on record when the interest was further reduced to 15% in terms of the Revised Procedure for Registration for Allotment of House, 1981 and whether the same is applicable in the case of the Complainant/Respondent or not. Be that as it may, as against the demand of higher rate of interest, the Complainant/Petitioner preferred a fresh Complaint (Consumer Complaint No. 650 of 2009) before the District Commission, wherein the interest rate had been reduced by the District Commission to 12% per annum and certain other directions were also issued, including a direction to the Petitioners to refund the amount already paid by the Complainant/Respondent with interest @ 6% per annum in case there is any default on his part in paying the amount due. It was only thereafter that both the Parties filed their respective Appeals before the State Commission. In this view of the matter, while it cannot be said that the aforesaid rules, regulations, etc. are not applicable upon the Complainant/Respondent, equally it cannot be accepted that the issue as regards levying of interest has attained finality in terms of the Order dated 04.04.2008 passed by the District Commission as either of the Parties have not challenged the same before the State Commission and, therefore, the Complainant/Respondent is required to pay the interest being levied on the delayed payment. As there was a substantial difference between the interest rates to be levied for making the delayed payment and for refunding the amount already paid by the Complainant/Respondent in case of default on his part in paying the amount due, the State Commission bearing in mind the principle of equity and in order to place both the Parties at the same footing, reduced the interest to be paid by the Complainant/Respondent on the delayed payment from 12%, as directed by the District Commission, to 6%. In our considered opinion, when the Petitioners are being given liberty to refund the amount to the Complainant/Respondent with 6% interest in case of default on his part in paying the amount due within the period of one month as given by the District Commission in its Order dated 28.01.2015, which direction has been affirmed by the State Commission, there is nothing wrong if the State Commission by the Impugned Order is also directing for levying the said interest rate on the delayed payment and, therefore, we uphold the Impugned Order passed by the State Commission. 14. In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the Order passed by the State Commission. The present Revision Petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 15. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs and it is directed that this Order shall not be taken as a precedent in other Cases. 16. Pending Application, if any, also stands disposed of. |
