This Revision Petition by the builder is directed against order dated 9.4.2014 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.P. at Lucknow (for short the State Commission) in Appeal No.2494/2012.  By the impugned order, the State Commission has affirmed the order, dated 28.9.2012, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Meerut (for short the District Forum) in Complaint No.395/2011, whereby the Petitioner was directed to refund to the complainant the full amount deposited by her for allotment of a shop in the complex developed by them along with interest @ 13% per annum from the date of each deposit till the date of refund.  The District Forum had also awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for mental and physical harassment and costs respectively.

          In our opinion the Revision Petition is bereft of any merit.  As a matter of fact the case is a classic example how a builder, after receiving the full amount of consideration, can pressurize a purchaser to pay additional amounts without himself not adhering to the construction schedule.  In the present case, despite the fact that the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.10,95,898/-, as mutually settled vide agreement dated 31.12.2005, for which payment the complainant had raised a loan of Rs.7,49,500/- from the ICICI Bank, the Petitioner had failed to deliver possession of the shop, on one pretext or the other.  Furthermore, without any authority from the purchaser, the builder even let out the shop, allotted to the complainant and pocketed an amount of Rs.75,000/- received as security and advance rent from the tenant.  Rejecting the objection of the Petitioner that the Complainant was not a consumer, the State Commission has affirmed the decision of the District Forum by observing thus :

“In the facts of the present case it is clear that the complainant has deposited Rs.10,95,898-00 against the disputed shop as per the agreement and was always ready for the execution of sale deed and had also purchased the stamp paper from treasury office of worth Rs.78,000-00 for the execution of sale deed and when nobody came forward from opposite party for the execution of sale deed, then after six month the complainant has filed an application before upper District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Meerut for the refund of stamp papers on 18.09.2008 which she has purchased, and the photo copy of blank stamp paper have also been attached and she had also informed the Chief Treasury officer vide letter dated 12.01.2009 and also got lodged an FIR against the cheating  committed against her by opposite party which is clear from the para 14 of grounds of appeal that complainant had got lodged an FIR against opposite party on dated 02.08.2008. In the light of all the foresaid facts it is clear that the complainant was always willing to take the aforesaid disputed shop, she had deposited all the amount and was waiting in registry office after purchase of the stamp papers, but on the contrary the opposite party without permission of the complainant has agreed to rent out the aforesaid shop after taking advance for Rs.75,000-00 and on rent of Rs.10,875-00 to M/s Mirza International. As per the complainant they have received the rent for many months, but it has been stated on behalf of opposite party/appellant that when M/s Mirza International came to know the reality they did not come back again. It is clear from the facts that the opposite party have been creating problems in respect of aforesaid shop and the attractive advertisement by which called for the shops has been not fulfilled and in case of the complainant, the opposite party has disillusioned her utmost and has been harassed and certainly deficiency in services has been made.”

          We do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order, warranting interference with the concurrent findings of the fact recorded by the Fora below, in exercise of our Revisional Jurisdiction.  Having regard to the aforesaid facts, the award of interest @ 13% per annum cannot be said to be on the higher side.          Before parting, we may note that, in order to test the bona fides of the petitioner, vide order dated 14.8.2014, we had directed it to deposit a sum of Rs.5 lakh in this Commission.  It is reported that the said deposit has been made.  We direct that the said amount shall be released to the complainant/respondent by the office forthwith.  The balance amount due by virtue of the orders made by the lower Fora, shall be paid to the respondent within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Resultantly, the Revision Petition is dismissed.