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

1.      The complainant/respondent registered himself with the petitioner Authority, for the allotment of house in ‘Shatabdi Nagar Housing Scheme’, by depositing a sum of Rs. 15,000/- on 15.10.1990. The aforesaid deposit was followed by another deposit of Rs. 30,000/- on 25.10.1991. Vide allotment letter dated 23.04.1991, the petitioner Authority allotted a three bedroom flat to the complainant in the said Scheme, for an estimated price of Rs. 4,50,000/-. He was asked to deposit four instalments of Rs. 25,000/- each, by the dates indicated in the said allotment letter. However, the construction of the flat allotted to the complainant having not been completed, he, vide letter dated 16.11.1993, requested the petitioner Authority to adjust him in Pallav Puram Residential Scheme. The aforesaid request was acceded to and vide letter dated 10.02.1994, the petitioner informed him that house no. NH57 in Pallavpuram Residential Scheme was allotted to him on 50% cash payment, in exchange of the allotment in Shatabdi Nagar Housing Scheme. He was informed that the approximate value of the flat in Pallavpuram Residential Scheme would be Rs. 565875/- and after adjusting the amount already deposited by him, the balance amount of Rs. 160437.50p should be deposited by him by 10.03.1994. The case of the petitioner Authority is that the complainant failed to make the balance payment despite repeated reminders sent to him from time to time. Vide letter dated 07.06.2002, he was informed that since he had failed to make the balance payment despite repeated reminders having been sent to him, the allotment had been cancelled and if he wanted the same to be restored, he would have to pay the cost of the house alongwith interest and the restoration fee by 05.07.2002. He was further informed that in the event of non-compliance, the accommodation in question will be allotted to some other person. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid action of the petitioner Authority, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint, seeking refund of the money which he had deposited with the Authority, alongwith interest.

2.      The complaint was resisted by the Authority on the ground that the allotment having been cancelled on account of default by the complainant in making payment of the balance amount, he had no cause to approach the consumer forum.

3.      The District Forum, vide its order dated 25.05.2004, directed the petitioner Authority to refund the amount of Rs. 1,45,000/- deposited by the complainant alongwith interest @ 15% per annum. The Authority was also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant.

4.      Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner Authority approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 05.11.2014, the State Commission set aside the order with regard to payment of damages while maintaining the rest of the directions given by the District Forum. Being still dissatisfied, the petitioner Authority is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.

5.      Admittedly, the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs. 1,45,000/- with the petitioner Authority  by the time the allotment was changed from Shatabdi Nagar Residential Scheme to Pallavpuram Housing Scheme. The total cost of the house at Pallavpuram Housing Scheme was Rs. 5,65,875/- as indicated in the allotment letter. 50% of that amount came to Rs. 2,82,937.50p. After deducting Rs. 1,45,000/- which the complainant had already deposited, the Authority ought to have demanded only Rs. 1,37,937.50p from him. The Authority however, demanded a sum of Rs. 160437.50p and did not give credit for the entire amount of Rs. 1,45,000/- which the complainant had deposited against the allotment in Shatabdi Nagar Housing Scheme despite at least two letters making the said prayer having sent by him. The complainant therefore, was justified in not making payment of Rs. 160437.50p demanded by the Authority, the said amount being higher than the amount which could legally be demanded from him.

6.      The learned counsel for the petitioner Authority submits that there was change fee of 4% / 5% of the registration money for allowing change from Shatabdi Nagar Residential Scheme to Pallavpuram Housing Scheme. Even if that is so, the amount demanded by the petitioner Authority was higher than the amount which it could have demanded after giving a credit for Rs. 1,45,000/ - which the complainant had already deposited and deducting 4% / 5% of the registration money. The cancellation made by the Authority on account of the failure of the complainant to deposit an inflated amount cannot be justified in law. The petitioner Authority cannot be allowed to take advantage of its own fault by firstly not giving credit for the entire amount which the complainant had already deposited and then cancelling the allotment on the ground that he had failed to deposit the balance amount in terms of the demand letters issued by it. Another important aspect in this regard is that though the petitioner Authority was unable to make a house available to the complainant in Shatabdi Nagar Residential Scheme, no interest/ compensation was paid by him to the complainant by despite having used his money for a substantial period. This was yet another act of deficiency on the part of the petitioner Authority in rendering service to the complainant.

7.      For the reasons stated hereinabove, the order directing refund cannot be faulted with. However I feel that award of interest @ 15% per annum was not justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned orders are modified and the complaint is disposed of by directing the petitioner Authority to refund the entire amount which the complainant had deposited with it, alongwith simple interest on that amount @ 10% per annum from the date on which the payment was made, till the date the said amount is actually refunded alongwith interest in terms of this order. The revision petition stands disposed of.