National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Shimla Development Authority vs Kuldeep Maria (Dr.) And Anr. on 13 February, 2006
Equivalent citations: 3(2006)CPJ295(NC)
ORDER
S.N. Kapoor, J. (Presiding Member)
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. In this matter, a short question relating to rate of interest to be given on the amount deposited by the complainant allottee for delayed delivery of possession of these allotted plots. The State Commission has awarded interest @ 18% per annum without giving any reason for awarding at that rate under different counts. The learned Counsel for the appellant-opposite party relied upon the judgment of Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh (first). In that case 18% interest awarded in Darsh Kumar v. Hilda I (2002) CPJ 35 (NC), was challenged. He submitted that interest could not have been awarded @ 18% per annum in all cases. There appears some force in submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant. In the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh (second) interest was awarded. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent Ms. Moorjani submits that in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh (first) as well as in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh (second) an exception was made in this regard.
2. Para 24 of Gliaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh (first) is as under:
We clarify that in all cases where interest has already been paid @ 18% irrespective of the above order, the authority will not be entitled to call upon the party to refund the amount which has already been paid.
Para 8 of Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh (second) is as under:
8. As the appellant has already deposited/paid 18% interest amount, they are precluded from calling upon the party to refund the same.
3. We have decided similar matters. This matter is squarely covered by that judgment and it is stated that amount has already been received by the complainant.
4. In the aforementioned circumstances, if the amount of interest has been paid @ 18% or lying in deposit with the Consumer Fora then the appellant cannot seek refund of the amount of interest but in case the amount of interest @ 18% has neither been paid nor deposited then the appellant would pay interest only @ 12% per annum. In these circumstances, both the parties are left to their own costs.
5. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.