APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS For the Complainant Mr. P.C. Shukla, In person For the OP Mr. Ravindra Kumar, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON : 22ND APRIL 2014 O R D E R PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER These two revision petitions have been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 01.11.2007, passed by the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short he State Commission in Appeal No. 2129/2004, ew Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) versus Prakash Chandra Shuklaand Appeal No. 1906/2004, rakash Chandra Shukla versus NOIDA vide which, appeal No. 2129/2004 filed by NOIDA was dismissed, whereas appeal No. 1906/2004 filed by Prakash Chandra Shukla was allowed. These two appeals had been filed against the order dated 03.09.2004, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gautam Budha Nagar (U.P.), vide which the complaint of Prakash Chandra Shukla was partly allowed and it was ordered that the OP / NOIDA shall pay interest @12% p.a. to the complainant for the period 07.06.2000 till 09.07.2001 on the amount of ` 60,000/- deposited by the complainant. Vide impugned order, the State Commission observed that NOIDA had received the entire amount of ` 23,48,819/- about 4years prior to the last date of payment and hence, their demand for penal interest was not justified. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Prakash Chandra Shukla applied for allotment of a residential plot in residential plot scheme 2000 (I) floated by the OP / NOIDA and deposited a sum of ` 60,000/- vide demand draft, bearing number 075187 dated 07.06.2000, alongwith application form no. 02693, that was deposited with the Union Bank of India at Ansari Road Branch, New Delhi. On 01.08.2000, the OP informed the general public through an advertisement in the press that the draw of lots under the above scheme was likely to be held in the month of August 2000. They also invited options for allotment of residential flats in their new scheme, by unsuccessful applicants of the earlier scheme. The complainant, who remained unsuccessful in the said draw of lots, gave his option for consideration in the new scheme. Vide allotment letter dated 09.07.2001, the OP made provisional allotment of flat in sector 61 under the new scheme. The cost of the flat was fixed at ` 17.5 lakh and the complainant was asked to deposit ` 4,85,000/- by 08.08.2001 and the balance amount of `_12,05,000/- was stated to be recoverable in 16 half-yearly instalments of `_1,31,870/- each and hence, the total amount demanded by the OP was ` 26,54,072/-. The complainant wrote to OP for exemption from the payment of interest and additional price, but his demand was rejected by the OP. The consumer complaint in question was then made with the prayer that physical possession of the flat in sector 61, NOIDA should be handed-over to the complainant without any enhancement in prices and without charging any interest from 09.08.2001. It was also stated that the OP should be directed to pay interest @20% p.a. on ` 60,000/- with effect from 07.06.2000 till the date of handing over the actual possession of the flat. In addition, OP should pay a sum of ` 20,000/- till the date of filing the complaint and further ` 4,000/- per month for the delay in handing over the physical possession of the flat. A sum of `_20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and `_10,000/- as cost of litigation was also demanded. 3. In their reply to the complaint filed by the NOIDA before the District Forum, it was stated that interest was being charged from the allottee as per the prescribed rules. The complainant could have deposited the entire amount of the flat with allotment money and thus, he could have escaped the liability of paying the interest. The question of possession could be raised only after the deposit of the allotment money. Moreover, the process of handing over the possession was started in March 2003, and hence there was no delay in handing over the possession. The District Forum vide their order dated 03.09.2004, directed the OP to pay interest @12% p.a. on ` 60,000/- from 07.06.2000 till 09.07.2001 and in this way, the District Forum by implication, rejected the demand of the complainant for not realising the additional price alongwith penal interest. Two appeals were filed against the order of the District Forum before the State Commission one by the complainant and the other by the OP / NOIDA. During the pendency of the appeal before the State Commission, the complainant deposited a total sum of ` 23,48,819/- with the OP and hence the dispute remained regarding the penal rate of interest. The State Commission vide impugned order, dismissed the appeal of OP / NOIDA, but allowed the appeal filed by the complainant, saying that after the deposit of ` 23,48,819/- as lump sum amount, there was no justification for demand of penal interest. It is against this order that the present petitions have been made by both the parties. 4. At the time of hearing before us, it was contended by the learned counsel for NOIDA that the registration of plot made by the complainant in the earlier scheme had been transferred to the new scheme for allotment of flats, following the option received from the complainant. There was no requirement for the complainant to send any formal application under the new scheme, but he was definitely governed by the terms and conditions of the new scheme. The learned counsel for the complainant has drawn our attention to the interim order dated 07.11.2005, passed by the State Commission, by which it has been directed that the entire cost of the flat alongwith interest @9% p.a. with effect from 08.08.2001 shall be paid within one month from the date of the said order, i.e., 07.11.2005. Further, within 15 days of receiving the payment, NOIDA will hand over the physical possession of the flat to the complainant. The question of actual interest or any other interest shall be determined at the time of final hearing of the two appeals. The learned counsel argued that there was no provision in the relevant brochure for payment of any interest on the initial deposit of ` 60,000/-. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent has drawn our attention to copy of the advertisement given by NOIDA on 07.02.2001, vide which, the last date for submission of application forms under the Housing Scheme Code 200 2001 (H) GI has been extended to 28.02.2001, and it has been stated that the applicants who had given option for allotment of flat under residential plot scheme 2000 (1) need not apply. Allotment letter dated 09.07.2001 was then sent to him by NOIDA, saying that if the allotment money of `4,85,000/- was not paid by him, the allotment of flat would be cancelled, followed by forfeiture of 1% of total cost of flat. Learned counsel further stated that copy of the brochure for residential plot scheme 2000 (1) was never filed before the District Forum. Moreover, the conditions specified in the said brochure were applicable to allotments under reserved category only and should not be imposed upon the complainant. The learned counsel stated that the impugned order was in accordance with law and should be upheld. 6. We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. In revision petition no. 1153/2018, filed by the complainant, it has been prayed that the excess amount paid by the complainant to the OP in the form of penal interest, amounting to ` 6,63,003/- alongwith interest @20% p.a. compounded half-yearly with effect from 09.12.2005, should be allowed to them, in addition to various other amounts as compensation against mental harassment/agony etc. On the other hand, OP / NOIDA, have made the prayer in their revision petition no. 118 of 2008 that the OP should be allowed to charge full value of the flat in question alongwith interest. The OP had suffered a loss of ` 9,61,716/- towards interest for the delay in making payment of allotment money and the instalments that had fallen due, till the time the complainant deposited the money. 7. The District Forum vide their order dated 03.09.2004 partly allowed the complaint and stated that the OP will pay interest @12% p.a. to the complainant for the period from 07.06.2000 till 09.07.2001 on the amount of ` 60,000/-, deposited by the complainant. The District Forum also directed that the complainant could obtain possession of the flat after payment of dues to the OP as per the terms and conditions. During the proceedings before the State Commission, an order dated 07.11.2005 was passed, vide which it was directed that the complainant shall deposit the entire cost of the flat alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date on which the allotment money was payable, i.e., 08.08.2001. On receiving the said payment, the NOIDA will hand over the physical possession of the flat no. 30B, Block E-15, Sector 61, NOIDA. It was also directed by the State Commission vide this order that the actual interest, penal interest or any other interest, which according to NOIDA was payable by the complainant shall be determined at the final hearing of the two appeals. While passing the impugned order dated 1.11.2007, the State Commission observed that the complainant had deposited the entire amount of ` 23,48,819/- as one lump sum amount on 09.12.2005 and hence, the OP / NOIDA received the entire amount about 4years prior to the last date of payment. The State Commission held that the demand made by OP/NOIDA for penal interest was not justified, as payment of huge amount of `_23,48,819/- had been made in lump sum. The State Commission also observed that the allotment letter in which the terms and conditions of the allotment as well as payment of price of the flat were clearly stipulated, was totally silent on the issue of interest. 8. The entire factual matrix of the case makes it very clear that the complainant was given a chance by OP/NOIDA to opt for allotment of flat in sector 61, NOIDA in the new scheme, in case, he remained unsuccessful in the draw of lots for a plot in the Residential Scheme 2000 (1). The complainant himself gave his option for consideration for allotment of flat in the new scheme. Since he remained unsuccessful in the draw of lots in the earlier scheme, the OP decided to allot him a flat in the new scheme. It is quite clear that since he himself opted for allotment of flat in the new scheme, he was bound by the terms and conditions concerning the price of the flat and payment of interest on the amount collected as per the terms and conditions of the allotment of flat. In pursuance of the order dated 07.11.2005, the complainant has already deposited full amount of the flat alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of allotment, as per the directions issued by the State Commission. The order dated 07.11.2005 has not been challenged by either party, as made out from record and hence, the said order has attained finality. Moreover, we agree with the observations of the State Commission that in the allotment letter, there was no mention about charging of interest/penal interest etc. from an allottee. 9. Based on the above discussion, we do not find any ground for interference in the well-reasoned order passed by the State Commission, which has been passed after carrying out an in-depth analysis of the facts and circumstances of the case on record. Both the revision petitions are, therefore, ordered to be dismissed and the impugned order passed by the State Commission dated 1.11.2007 is upheld. There shall be no order as to costs.