This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Ajay Kumar Bhalla against the order dated 22.03.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in  Appeal No.1007 of 2016.

2.      Brief facts of the case are that on 10.10.2009, the petitioner applied/booked a flat in the Housing Scheme- Vrindavan Yojana of U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow by depositing Rs.90,000/- as registration amount in Self-financing Scheme .  On 21.04.2010, demand letter was issued intimating the petitioner about the total cost of the property and quarterly instalments to be paid.  By 28.12.2011, the petitioner had deposited the entire amount of said flat within time.  On 28.12.2011, the petitioner sent a legal notice and again on 04.02.2013. In March 2014, the petitioner filed a consumer complaint No.CC 199 of 2014 before the District Consumer Forum, Lucknow-1.  On 15.07.2014, the respondents issued another allotment letter to the petitioner requiring him to deposit additional cost of the flat Rs.2,92,018/- by 31.08.2014 and in case of failure, to deposit Rs.50/- per day as delay penalty charges.  On 12.10.2014, in response to the letter dated 14.08.2014, the petitioner along with 5 other allottees of the said Scheme wrote a memorandum, addressed to the 1^st respondent, opposing the increase in cost of the flat on the ground that the cost of the land was already included in the original cost.  On 27.10.2014, pursuant to the advice of the respondent -1, the petitioner along with other allottees met the concerned officials and discussed the matters relating to the increased cost of the flats.  On 30.10.2014, the petitioner paid the increased cost of the flat.  On 26.12.2014, the sale deed of the flat was executed in favour of the petitioner.  On 14.03.2015, petitioner was handed over the physical possession of the flat. On 30.3.2016, District Forum partially allowed the complaint of the petitioner as under:-

“The complaint is partly allowed.  The OPs are severally and jointly directed to pay 9% interest on the amount of Rs.17,50,000.00 from 21.04.2012 to the date of handing over the possession of the flat to the complainant.

        The OPs are also directed to pay Rs.5,000.00 (Rupees Five Thousand Only) as compensation and Rs.3,000.00 (Rupees Three Thousand Only) as cost of the litigation to the Complainant.

        The compliance of the order is to be made within a month.”

3.      The respondents approached the State Commission, vide their appeal No.1007 of 2016 wherein the State Commission allowed the appeal and order of the District Forum was set aside.

4.      Hence the present revision petition. 

5.      Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that he is agitating two things in the revision petition.  The first is that the District Forum has allowed interest @ 9% pa. on the deposited amount from the due date of possession till actual possession, however, the State Commission has dismissed the complaint on the appeal filed by the respondent.  The second point is in respect of the fact that the respondent is taking price of the land twice from the complainant.  Learned counsel mentioned that the possession was to be given on 21.04.2012 whereas, the same has been given on 14.05.2015.  Thus, the complainant is definitely entitled to compensation for the delayed possession.  It was requested that the District Forum has allowed delay compensation @9% p.a. on the amount deposited and the same should be restored.  It was stated by the learned counsel that he has made all the payments as per demand notices sent by the opposite parties and the complainant has not defaulted in any payment.

6.       It was further argued that in the first allotment letter dated 21.04.2010, the total cost of the flat was mentioned, which obviously included the cost of the land.  However, in the second allotment letter dated 15.07.2014 an additional amount of Rs.2,62,921/- was demanded for price of land of flat area 42.682 sq.m at a rate of Rs.5500.00 p.sq.m. with free hold charges @12% of the price.  It was requested that the land price, which has been charged second time should be refunded to the complainant/petitioner.

7.      Learned counsel for the respondent/opposite parties stated that the complainant has paid last instalment in October, 2014 and possession was to be given within six months after payment of the last instalment as per the terms and conditions of the allotment and the possession has been given on 14.03.2015.  Learned counsel mentioned that as per condition No.2.1, the sale price given in the brochure was tentative and actual price could only be given after the full construction of the building. 

8.      Learned counsel further stated that if the complainant was not satisfied with time taken by the opposite parties for constructing the said building, he was free to ask for the refund as per Condition No.4.6 of the registration booklet which reads as under:-

“4.6.  If U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad is unable to handover the possession to any allottee due to delay in construction within 6 months from depositing the last instalment the amount deposited will be refunded alongwith the S.B. Account Rate of Interest upto previous month of asking for refund.”

9.      It was argued that the complainant has not demanded refund of the amount and therefore, his satisfaction would be treated as implied.  As he did not accept this option, he cannot raise the question of delay and ask for any compensation.

10.    On the question of land pricing, the learned counsel stated that this was not part of the main complaint.  This issue is being raised at the level of revision petition, which cannot be allowed.   Learned counsel further explained that earlier the land was being given on lease basis whereas the second allotment is on free –hold basis.  There is no irregularity in issuing the demand letter vide letter dated 15.7.2014. The State Commission has not allowed interest in the light of Supreme Court order in Bangalore Development Authority Vs. Syndicate Bank 11 (2007) CPJ 17 (SC), wherein it has been observed that:-

“As already noticed, where the grievance is one of delay in delivery of possession, and the Development Authority delivers the house during the pendency of the complaint at the agreed price, and such delivery is accepted by the allottee-complainant, the question of awarding any interest on the price paid by him from the date of deposit to date of delivery of possession, does not arise.  The allottee who had the benefit of appreciation of price of the house, is not entitled to interest on the price paid.  In this case, the 11 houses were delivered in 1997 at the agreed prices (Rs.5.5. lacs per corner HIG house and Rs.4.75 lacs per other High houses).  In view of it, the order of the Commission awarding interest at 18% per annum on the price of the house is unsustainable and liable to be set aside.”

11.    So in the light of this judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court and in the light of Clause 4.6 of the Registration Booklet no interest can be allowed to the complainant on the amount deposited. In the second communication/allotment letter listed 15.7.2014 final costing has been communicated wherein construction cost of the flat has been shown to be Rs.17,79,097/- and cost of land including 12% of cost as free hold charges has been shown as Rs.2,62,921/- giving total cost as Rs.20,42,018/-.  This clearly means that the costing given vide letter dated 15.07.2014 gives the final costing of constructions as well as of the land including free-hold charges and therefore, there can be no question of charging the land price twice.   

12.    Based on the above discussion, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order dated 22.3.2017 passed by the State Commission in FA No.1007 of 2016 which requires any interference from this Commission.  Accordingly, the Revision Petition No.1949 of 2017 is dismissed.