IA/12018/2022 An Application seeking condonation of delay in filing the First Appeal has been filed by the Appellant. Heard the learned Counsel for the Parties and perused the averments made in the Application seeking condonation of delay. The cause shown is sufficient. The delay is condoned. The Application is allowed and the First Appeal is treated to having been filed within limitation. FA/983/2022 Meerut Development Authority (MDA) has approached this Commission by filing the present First Appeal under Section 51(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the Order dated 30.08.2022, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission”), whereby the State Commission has partly allowed the Consumer Complaint No.114/2020 (Ratnakar Jain Vs. Meerut Development Authority through President/Secretary, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh) and directed the Appellant herein to refund the amount along with simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of refund. The refund was to be made within 30 days failing which the interest rate stands increased to 12% per annum. I have heard Mr. Rachit Mittal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant and Mr. Devanshu Aggarwal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent and perused the impugned Order, the averments made in the Memo of Appeal as also the documents filed along with it. The facts not in dispute are that the plots in Shatabdi Enclave-II, which was advertised for being given to the Allottees including the Respondent herein did not materialize so far. Thus, the State Commission had directed the Appellant herein to refund the amount @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of refund. The refund was to be made within 30 days failing which the interest rate shall increase to 12% per annum. The submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant herein is that the Appellant Authority is working on ‘no profit no loss basis’ is wholly without any merits. It is a statutory body and perform the duties entrusted under the Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 and it also charges interest from the allottees if any instalment of the price of the allotted plot has not been paid within the stipulated period, which is @16% per annum. The State Commission had only directed to refund the entire amount @ 9% per annum which is much less than what the Respondent herein charges on late payment of the instalments from the Allottees. Enhancement of interest @ 12% per annum, if the amount is not refunded within the stipulated period, is also much less than 16% per annum. Therefore, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned Order passed by the State Commission. Accordingly, the Appeal stands dismissed. | 
