PER JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) Aggrieved by the order dated 31.1.2007 passed by the Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patna in First Appeal No. 431 of 2001, Bihar State Housing Board (opposite party in the -2- complaint before the District Forum) has filed the present petition purportedly under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appeal before the State Commission was filed by the original complainant-Ram Shankar Prasad against the order dated 29.6.2001 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patna in complaint case No. 864 of 1999, thereby directing the Housing Board to refund the deposited amount of Rs. 16,506/- to the complainant towards the earnest money alongwith 5% interest from the date of deposit till its payment. In appeal, the complainant sought enhancement of the rate of interest and relief and the State Commission partly allowed the appeal and enhanced the rate of interest from 5% to 13.7% per annum, hence this petition. 2. We have heard the counsel for the petitioner-Board but had not the advantage of hearing the say of the respondent-complainant as none appeared for him despite due service of the notice of the date of hearing. Counsel for the petitioner would assail the impugned order passed by the State Commission on the strength of Bihar State Housing Board (Management and Disposal of Housing Estate) Regulation 1983, which stipulated the payment of interest @ 5% per annum in case an allottee did not want to pay the balance amount and sought refund of earnest money deposited by him. Reliance is also placed on the -3- decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 23.08.2005 in the case of Bihar State Housing Board Versus Arun Dakshy in Civil Appeal No. 7225 of 2002. In para-6 of the said order, the similar question came up before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court on considering the stipulation in Regulation 45 of the said Regulations hold that no interest exceeding 5% could be awarded by observing as under: “6. Learned counsel for the appellant contended and in our opinion rightly, that the Commission should not have travelled beyond the interest regulated by the statutory regulation, which fixed at 5% and awarding 18% interest dehors the Regulation 45 of the said Regulation. In the instant case, in the Regulation itself namely Regulation 45 provides that the simple interest @ 5% will be payable on the money so deposited. The Regulation being self-contained and the interest payable under the Regulation being regulated by the statute under Regulation 45 of the Bihar State Housing Board Regulation, the Commission should not have travelled beyond the pale of statutory Regulation, apart from awarding interest @ 18% at the flat rate being deprecated by this Court in Balbir Singh (supra); 7. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned orders are not sustainable in law and they are being quashed and set-aside. The respondent is entitled to interest @ 5% as envisaged under the Regulation 45. The Award of compensation of Rs. 5000/- is also set aside.” 3. The said decision squarely covers the facts of the present case and therefore, we must allow the revision petition and set aside the order passed by the State Commission and restore the order passed by the District Forum. -4- We order accordingly. | 
