National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Housing Board Haryana vs Shri Kuldeep Anand on 29 April, 2013
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION No. 3095 of 2012 (From the order dated 20.04.2012 of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula in First Appeal no. 1837 of 2010) Housing Board Haryana Through its Secretary Sector 6, Panchkula Petitioner Haryana Versus Shri Kuldeep Anand Son of Late Shri P C Anand R/o 5D/ 58 NIT Respondent Faridabad Haryana BEFORE: HONBLE MR JUSTICE V B GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MRS REKHA GUPTA MEMBER For the Petitioner Mr Salil Paul, Advocate For the Respondent Mr D S Chadha, Advocate Pronounced on 29th April 2013 ORDER
REKHA GUPTA Revision petition no. 3095 of 2012 has been filed against the order dated 20.04.2012 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (the State Commission) in First Appeal no. 1837 of 2010.
The facts of the case as per the respondent/complainant are as follows:
On 01.05.1998 the Housing Board Haryana invited applications for allotment of LIG houses by way of draw and accordingly the respondent/complainant applied for the allotment of the said flat vide his application form no. 004200 dated 26.05.1998 along with a Bank draft of Rs.10,000/-
bearing no. 0000440 dated 25.05.1998 issued by the Bank of India in favour of Housing Board Haryana and the Housing Board Haryana issued the receipt of the same to the complainant on 26.05.1998.
The application of respondent/complainant was registered vide registration no. 2577 LIG/Gen and the said draw was held on 14.07.1999 at Sector 6 Panchkula. In the said draw no house was allotted to the respondent/ complainant and the amount of Rs.10,000/- remained deposited with the petitioner/ respondents. The respondent/complainant many a times requested the petitioner to refund the amount of Rs.10,000/- but every time the petitioner kept on saying that another draw of waiting list is to be commenced and they had kept his money for the draw.
On 07.04.2003 the respondent finally wrote to the petitioner no. 1 to refund the deposited amount. The petitioner no. 1 instead of refunding the deposited amount sent a letter no. HBH/CRO-A/2003/12769 dated 16.10.2003, after a span of three months, informing the respondent that the name of respondent has been kept in waiting list and will be considered in the second draw of lots of houses. The second draw was held on 03.11.2003 at 10.00 a m in Sector 6, Panchkula Housing Board Office, Panchkula.
In the second draw the respondent was allotted tenement no. 2309 A in general scheme at Sector 55, Faridabad vide allotment letter no. 10326 dated 24.11.2003 which was received by petitioner on 02.12.2003, wherein apart from cost of the said house petitioners have calculated the interest of Rs.34,235/- from 26.05.1998.
As per the respondent since he has been allotted the said house only on 03.11.2003 in the second draw and the allotment letter was issued on 24.11.2003 which was received by the respondent on 02.12.2003, the respondent is not at all liable to pay the interest of Rs.34,235/- from May 1998, the respondent was not allotted any house in the first draw and on the other hand the respondent is entitled to receive interest @ 18% per annum on Rs.10,000/- from 26.05.1998 till 03.11.2003, when in the second draw the respondent has been allotted the said house. The respondent stated that he was ready and willing to deposit the balance sale price of Rs.17,510/- or any other legal dues to the housing board.
The respondent/complainant sent a letter dated 08.12.2003 to the petitioner no. 2 asking why the respondent was being charged with such an exaggerated interest of Rs.34,325/- on the LIG flat without any cogent reasons. After getting no reply, the respondent sent another letter dated 23.12.2003, to the petitioner no. 2. In reply to the above stated letter, the petitioner no.2 intimated to the respondent that his case has been sent to the Head Office vide letter no. 11341 dated 30.12.2003 for necessary action.
Thereafter, to the utter surprise of the respondent instead of receiving any concession, the respondent received a letter no. HBH/EB/2001/11361 dated 30.12.2003 stating that since the respondent had failed to execute the Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement and to take possession of the house he had acted in contravention of the regulations of the petitioner. Petitioner no. 2 further gave the date of 15.01.2004 to show cause and tender evidence as to why the allotment should not be cancelled.
In reply to the letter dated 30.12.2003 of the petitioner no. 2, respondent vide letter dated 15.01.2004 explained the reason for non-deposit of amount and further asked the petitioner to explain the reason, why the interest is being charged from him.
In response the petitioner/ OP no. 1 while accepting the facts as mentioned by the respondent have submitted that the respondent has no locus standi to file the present complaint against the petitioner.
The respondent has no cause of action to file the present complaint against the petitioner. The complaint is liable to be dismissed for not exhausting the remedies available under Section 72 A and 72 B of the Haryana Housing Board Act, 1971 and it is settled law that when remedies under special Act like the Haryana Housing Board Act, 197 has been provided by the above said act then the general remedies of filing complaint in present form is barred.
The facts of the case as given by the complaint were admitted. However, it was further submitted that interest of Rs.34,235/- has been demanded legally and as per policy of the board. The Board has charged Rs.34,235/- as interest amount from the petitioner upon the principal amount of Rs.91,700/- w.e.f May 2001 to December 2004 as per policy of the Board. Thus the Board had correctly and legally demanded the amount in question from the petitioner.
The Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (the District Forum) after hearing the counsel for the parties and going through the records of complaint no. 119 of 2004 made their order dated 10.11.2010 stated as follows:
When asked during the course of argument as to why the Board had demanded interest on the cost of the house from the respondent/complainant in the letter of allotment dated 24.11.2003, the Estate Officer who was present in person, explained that since the construction of the house had been completed in the year 2001 at the cost of Rs.91,700/- as shown in the allotment letter and it was allotted to the respondent/complainant when the first allottee failed to take possession of the same, the interest was added on the cost of the house which was actually allotted to the respondent/complainant on 24.11.2003 because the respondent had raised loan for constructing the house from the bank and they (respondents) were also paying interest to the bank on the loan amount. But this explanation was furnished by the Estate Officer for the first time during the course of arguments. No such explanation was given by the respondents in their written statement nor they submitted any such explanation in reply to the letters written by the complainant time and again asking the respondents as to how and on what basis the interest was added on the cost of the house. The respondents issued show cause notice to the complainant as to why the allotment of house made in his favour be not cancelled when he had deposited the cost of the house along with interest and had not obtained the possession thereof but the respondent never tried to explain as to under what condition of allotment or the rules of the Housing Board, the interest was being charged from him on the cost of the house when the allotment letter of the house was issued to him for the first time on 24.11.2003. A brochure of the Housing Board Haryana was shown at the time of arguments by the counsel for the complainant. Condition no. 7 of the brochure reads that the Housing Board Haryana reserved the right to demand any amount before allotment over and above the amount payable after draw of lots in case of escalation of cost. Condition no. 3 of the allotment letter also provides that the amount of monthly instalment, rate of interest to be charged and the total cost of the house can be increased at any time without assigning any reason. In view of these conditions of allotment the respondents were within their rights to ask for escalation of the cost, if any, of the house allotted to the complainant but they had no right to ask for payment of interest on the cost of the house in the letter of allotment itself and that too without replying the letters of the complainant as to how the interest was added and calculated on the cost of the house.
The response for non-deposit of the cost of house by the complainant was that he wrote letters to the respondents time and again asking them as to how and why the interest was added on the cost of the house in the letter of allotment but they failed to reply any of his letters and to furnish any explanation for charging of interest. Since the complainant did not receive any reply of his letters he did not deposit the total amount demanded from him towards the price of the house. In these circumstances, there was no justification for cancellation of the allotment of the house made to the complainant. The order of cancellation of house dated 01.03.2004, is therefore, not legally sustainable in the eyes of law.
Resultantly, the cancellation order dated 01.03.2004 passed by respondent no. 1 for cancellation of the allotment of house no. 2309 A in Housing Board Colony, Sector 55, Faridabad, is held to be illegal and not binding upon the complainant. This house shall not be allotted to any other person till a fresh order is passed by the competent authority of the respondents in respect of the allotment of the said house after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the complainant. The respondents are also ordered to pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation and mental harassment to the complainant.
Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the petitioner filed an appeal in the State Commission. The State Commission after hearing the learned counsels in their order dated 20.04.2010 stated as follows:
The complainant applied for flat on 26.05.1998 pursuance to the advertisement dated 01.05.1998 and deposited the requisite amount. The draw was to be held on 14.07.1999 in the said draw, the complainant was not found successful. On being enquired into it transpired that the name of unsuccessful applicants had been kept in the waiting list to be considered in the future draw. The amount deposited kept lying with the OPs. Subsequent draw being held and complainant being successful, complainant deposited the amount, however, since OPs demanded interest on the cost of the flat, the complainant challenged the same and in the meanwhile, OPs also cancelled the flat. The District Forum allowed the complaint of the complainant. Since the amount deposited by the complainant kept with the OPs, the liability was of OPs. To pay interest on the amount and not vice versa. Despite OPs could not ask interest from complainant and that by itself an unfair trade practice. Therefore, District Forum had taken into consideration at the aspects rightly and allowed the complaint of the complainant. No ground to interfere in the impugned order.
Hence this appeal is dismissed.
Aggrieved by order of the State Commission, the Haryana Housing Board has filed this present revision petition. The main grounds in the revision petition are that:
- the State Commission, Haryana and the District Forum Faridabad gravely erred in passing the orders/judgments against the petitioner, Housing Board Haryana without appreciating the fact that 1st draw of lot for houses were made on 14.07.1999 and the 2nd draw of lots for houses were made on 03.11.2003 and thus there was a gap of 3 years and four months. The petitioner, Housing Board Haryana is entitled to the interest on cost. The two Fora below failed to appreciate that the house given to the applicants/ persons in the years 1999 at the price of Rs.91,700/-
cannot be same for the applicants/ persons in the year 2003 i.e., after a gap of three years and four months. Increasing the cost of the house after three years and four months by Rs.34,235/- on account of interest on cost by the petitioner, Housing Board Haryana is not wrong demand but is a justified reason and legal. This is the policy of the petitioner Housing Board.
- the State Commission, Haryana and the District Forum Faridabad gravely erred in passing the orders/ judgments against the petitioner, Housing Board Haryana without appreciating the fact that the cost of the flat has to be increased as Rs.1,28,005/- which includes the original price of the house as Rs.91,700/-. Enhanced land compensation as Rs.2070/- and interest on cost as Rs.34,235/-. It be stated that interest on cost as Rs.34,325/- means interest from May 2001 to December 2003 @ 14% per annum.
- the State Commission, Haryana and the District Forum, Faridabad gravely erred in passing the orders/ judgments against the petitioner, Housing Board Haryana without appreciating the fact that the interest on cost as Rs.34,235/- means interest from May 2001 to December 2003 @ 14% per annum. The houses are made by the petitioner, Housing Board Haryana and the money is spent on in the year 1999-2000-2001 and the successful applicants of 1st draw of lots of houses are given houses. In the 1st draw of lot on 14.07.1999 some of the successful applicant cancelled/ withdraw/ surrendered their name and so those houses were put in the second list of draw of houses whose name were in the waiting list like the respondent/complainant applicant. After three and half years, 2nd draw of lots of houses are performed and the houses are given to the applicants who are in the waiting list of the 1st draw of lots and are successful applicants in the 2nd list of draw of houses. The price of the house cannot be same for the persons getting house in the 1st draw of lots of houses and the persons getting house in the 2nd draw of lots after a gap of 3 and half year. This is the policy of the petitioner Housing Board Haryana.
- the State Commission, Haryana and the District Forum, Faridabad gravely erred in passing the orders/ judgments against the petitioner, Housing Board Haryana without appreciating the fact that in the present case the fault is of the respondent/ complainants himself as he was not deposited the money as per the allotment letter.
-
the State Commission, Haryana and the District Forum, Faridabad gravely erred in passing the orders/ judgments against the petitioner, Housing Board Haryana, without appreciating the fact that the respondent/ complainant applicant after the receipt of the allotment letter dated 24.11.2003 regarding House no. 2309 A/LIG/FF, in Sector 55, Housing Board Colony, Faridabad, Haryana has been allotted to him, neither respond to it nor did pay the amount as stipulated in the said allotment letter and so as per the so as per the above stated Housing Board, Haryana (Allotment, Management and Sale of Tenements) Regulations, 1972, allotment letter, rules and regulations and the terms and conditions of the Housing Board Haryana, ultimately the petitioner/ OP Housing Board Haryana as per the policy vide letter dated 30.12.2003 issued Show Cause Notice to the respondent/ complainant applicant and finding no positive respondent cancelled the house allotted to him and paid 50% of the Registration amount.
We have heard the learned counsels for both the petitioner as well as the respondent and have carefully gone through the records of the case.
We asked the Counsel for the petitioner whether the respondent had asked for a refund after he was not allotted the flat in the draw held on 14.07.1999. The counsel categorically stated that the respondent had not ask for the refund. In paragraph 3 and 4 of the complaint of the respondent before the District Forum he has stated as follows:
- the application of complainant was registered vide registration no. 2577 LIG/Gen and the said draw was held on 14.07.1999 at Sector 6 Panchkula. In the said draw no house was allotted to the complainant and the amount of Rs.10,000/- remained deposited with the respondents. The complainant many time requested the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.10,000/- but every time respondents kept on saying that an another draw of waiting list is to be commenced and we had kept your money for the draw.
- that on 07.04.2003 the complainant finally wrote down the respondent no. 1 to refund the deposited amount. The respondent no. 1 instead of refunding the deposited amount sent a letter no. HBH/CRO A/2003/12769 dated 16.10.2003 after a span of three months informing the complainant that the name of complainant has been kept in waiting list and will be considered in the second draw of lots of houses, which was held on 03.11.2003 at 10.00 a m Sector 6, Panchkula Housing Board Office, Panchkula.
Respondent no. 1 in their written statement before the District Forum had admitted the facts contained in paragraphs 3 and 4 only denying that it would be wrong to say that the complainant many times requested the answering respondent to refund the amount of Rs.10,000/-. Counsel for the petitioner has hence, tried to mislead the Bench on this score.
In paragraph IV of the grounds for the revision petition it is that respondent/complainant after the receipt of the allotment letter dated 24.11.2003 regarding house no. 2309 A/LIG/FF in Sector 55, Housing Board Colony, Faridabad, Haryana has been allotted him, neither responded to it nor did he pay the amount as stipulated in the allotment letter.
However, we note that in paragraph 8 of the complaint the respondent has stated as under:
The complainant sent a letter dated 08.12.2003 to the respondent no. 2 asking why the complainant be charged with such an exaggerated interest of Rs.34,235/- on the LIG Flat without any cogent reason. After getting no reply, the complainant sent an another letter dated 23.12.2003 to the respondent no. 2. In reply to the above stated letter, the respondent no. 2 intimated the complainant that his case has been sent to the Head Office vide letter no.
11341 dated 30.12.2003 for necessary action. We also noted that the petitioner in their written statements have admitted the facts as mentioned by the complainant. Hence, it is apparent that the petitioner has also tried to mislead the court in the revision petition.
Counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of the Bench to the allotment letter dated 24.11.2003 which is reproduced below:
Housing Board Haryana Housing Board Colony Sector 55 Station Faridabad No. 10326 Dated 24.11.2003 Shri Kuldeep Anand Son of Shri P C Anand House no. 5 D 58 NIT Faridabad Reference: Your application registered at Registration no. 1952/174
1. LIG General Scheme Tenement no. 2309 A area 1423 sq mtr in the Housing Board colony at Sector 55 Faridabad is allotted to you on hire-purchase basis on a allotment/final price noted below:
(i) Price of House (normal area) Rs.9,17,000/-
(ii) ELC Rs. 2,070/-
(iii) Additional Charges for preferential NIL (Corner) House
(iv) Interest on cost Rs. 34,235/-
TOTAL Rs.1,28,005/-
2. The details of the amount deposited by you as per your application etc., is given below:
(a) Registration deposit Rs.10,000/-
(b) Amount deposited after draw of lots -------
(c)
--------- -------
TOTAL Rs.10,000/-
3. You are requested to deposit the following amount and take possession of the house within 30 days from the date of issue of this letter (1) Cost of additional land NIL (2) ELC Rs. 2,070/-
(3)Allotment money Rs.17,510/-
(4)Cost of H P T A Rs. 5/-
(5)Interest on Cost Rs.34,235/-
(6)Two monthly Installments Rs. 1,796/-
TOTAL Rs.5,616/-
4. The balance price of the house is payable in monthly instalments of Rs.898/- per month each over a period of 13 years.
It is apparent from the allotment letter that the price of the house is still shown as Rs.91,700/-. ELC has shown as Rs.2070/- and item no. 4 interest on cost which is written in hand is shown as Rs.34,235/- with the total coming to Rs.1,28,005/-. He has been asked to deposit Rs.55,616/- and take possession of the house within 30 days. There is no explanation in the allotment letter regarding interest on cost and the amount of Rs.17,510/-. The respondent has stated in his complaint that in reply to the letter dated 30.12.2003 of respondent no. 2, he had again asked an explanation on why interest being charged. The petitioners have even admitted this fact. The explanation for the interest on cost was given for the first time before the District Forum. The District Forum in their order had rightly recorded that:
In view of the conditions of allotment the respondent were within their rights to ask for escalation of the cost, if any, of the house allotted to the complainant but they have no right to ask for payment of interest on the cost of the house in the letter of allotment itself and that too without replying to the letters of the complainant as to how the interest was added and calculated on the cost of the house.
The State Commission in their order also came to the same conclusion that:
Since OPs demanded interest on the cost of the flat, the complainant challenged the same and in he meanwhile, OPs also cancelled the flat. The District Forum allowed the complaint of the complainant. Since the amount deposited by the complainant kept with the OPs, the liability was of OPs, to pay interest on the amount and not vice versa. Despite OPs could not ask interest from complainant and that by itself an unfair trade practice.
When the Bench asked the Counsel for the petitioner that was it not a fair request by the respondent that the petitioner clarify the position with regard to interest being charged to the respondent, the Counsel said that the petitioner was a Government body and was not bound to give explanation or information.
Counsel for the respondent drew our attention to clause 5.2 of the Housing Board Haryana (Allotment, Management and Sale of Tenements) Regulations, 1972, as amended upto 29th February 2004, which is reproduced below:
Application for tenements (1) Any person desiring to purchase a tenement in any building by way of sale or hire-purchase may, in pursuance of the notice published under Regulation 4 make an application to the Board in the form prescribed by the Board.(2)
No application shall be accepted by the Board unless it is received on or before the date specified in the notice or the date extended from time to time and the applicant pays the amount with the application at the time of registration as provided in the notice published under Regulation 4. The applicant shall not be entitled to any interest on the amount paid with the application at the time of registration where the Board allots him a house within a period of two years from the closing date of registration or where the applicant chooses to withdraw his application within the period of two years which will be governed by the provisions of regulations
12. In other cases, where the Board fails to allot houses within a period of two years from the closing date of registration, interest on amount paid within the application at the time of registration shall be payable for the period after the expiry of two years from the closing date off registration to the date of allotment or date of refund, whichever is earlier, at the rate application in the case of saving back accounts of the nationalized banks:
Provided that if the Board is satisfied that the delay in submission of an application was on account of good and sufficient reasons, it may condone the delay.
A reading of the same would clearly indicate that the petitioner was bound to pay interest on Rs.10,000/- after the expiry of two years from the closing date of the registration to the date of allotment whichever is earlier at the rate applicable in the case of savings bank accounts of the nationalized bank as petitioner were claiming 14%, they should have paid interest at the same rate.
Clause 10.3 of the same regulations states as under:
Allotment letter, conditions of allotment etc:
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the notice inviting applications, if after receipt of final bills for the construction of tenements or payment of interest on the amount of loans taken for the constructions of such tenement or for expenditure incurred, for supervision, the Board considers it necessary to revise the price already specified in the notice, it may do so and determine the final price payable on allotment and all allottees in relation to the tenements aforesaid shall be bound by such determination and they shall pay difference, if any, between the final price so determined and the price paid by them including price paid in lump sum. Premium may also be charged for more advantageously situated tenements in the discretion of the Board as determined from time to time.
We are of the view that the petitioner was well within their rights to revise the cost of the flat at the time of second draw on 03.11.2003 but the letter dated 16.10.2003 informing the respondent of the draw to be held on 03.11.2003 should have been clearly indicated the revised cost of the said flat so that he could have withdrawn from the draw if he so decided. The allotment letter should have also indicated the revised cost. The genuine doubt was caused by including the element of interest on costs and by the petitioner to give an explanation to the petitioner. It is quite clear that he thought he was being charged interest for not paying the cost of the house in 1998. He has stated that:
Hence, the respondent is not all liable to pay interest on Rs.34,235/- since the amount of Rs.10,000/- was paid in May 1998 and the complainant was not allotted any house in the first draw held on 14.07.1999. Further, the respondent had categorically stated that he is ready and willing to deposit the balance sale price of Rs.17,510/- or any other legal due to the Housing Board.
Had the Housing Board explained the total cost by giving a detailed break-up of the amount due instead of arbitrarily cancelling the allotment, the respondent would have not have been denied the said flat for a period of over 9 years.
The counsel for the respondent have cited the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and Another vs The Chief Election Commissioner, new Delhi and Ors. AIR 1978 Supreme Court 851. Counsel for the respondent has drawn our attention to paragraph 8 of the said order which reads as under:
The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order had in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observation of Bose J Gordhandas Bhanji (AIR 1952 SC 16).
Public orders publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the acting and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself.
The petitioner erred in failing to revise the cost of the tenements put up for allotment in the second draw held on 03.11.2003 and informing the public and more particularly those on the wait list. The petitioner, a public authority set up to provide affordable housing to the public, further failed to clarify a genuine doubt of an allottee with regard to the interest being charged and thereafter to compound their callous and indifferent attitude to the public and their allottees, unilaterally cancelled the allotment on grounds that would not stand to independent scrutiny. Further, the petitioner and their counsel have deliberately sought to mislead the Bench.
We feel that the District Forum and State Commission have rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioner has acted in an arbitrary manner and there was no justification for cancellation of the allotment of the house made to the respondent.
In the case of Ramrameshwari Devi and Ors. vs Nirmala Devi and Ors in Civil Appeal nos. 4912- 4913 of 2011 decided on 4th July 2011 the Honble Supreme Court has held that:
Pleadings are foundation of the claims of parties. Civil litigation is largely based on documents. It is the bounden duty and obligation of the trial judge to carefully scrutinize, check and verify the pleadings and the documents filed by the parties. This must be done immediately after civil suits are filed.
The court should resort to discovery and production of documents and interrogatories at the earliest according to the object of the Act. If this exercise is carefully carried out, it would focus the controversies involved in the case and help the court in arriving at truth of the matter and doing substantial justice.
Imposition of actual, realistic or proper costs and or ordering prosecution would go a long way in controlling the tendency of introducing false pleadings and forged and fabricated documents by the litigants. Imposition of heavy costs would also control unnecessary adjournments by the parties. In appropriate cases the courts may consider ordering prosecution otherwise it may not be possible to maintain purity and sanctity of judicial proceedings.
While imposing costs we have to take into consideration pragmatic realities and be realistic what the defendants or the respondents had to actually incur in contesting the litigation before different courts. We have to also broadly take into consideration the prevalent fee structure of the lawyers and other miscellaneous expenses which have to be incurred towards drafting and filing of the counter affidavit, miscellaneous charges towards typing, photocopying, court fee etc. The other factor which should not be forgotten while imposing costs is for how long the defendants or respondents were compelled to contests and defend the litigation in various courts. The appellants in the instant case have harassed the respondents to the hilt for four decades in a totally frivolous and dishonest litigation in various courts. The appellants have also wasted judicial time of the various courts for the last 40 years.
In view of the foregoing reasons, we find that there is no jurisdictional error, illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission warranting our interference. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed with cost of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only).
Petitioner is directed to pay Rs.25,000/- to the respondent directly by way of demand draft and the balance amount of Rs.25,000/- be deposited by way of demand draft in the name of Consumer Welfare Fund as per Rule 10 A of Consumer Protection Rules, 1987, within four weeks from today. In case the petitioner fails to deposit the said amount within the prescribed period, then it shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum till realisation.
List on 31st May 2013 for compliance.
Sd/-
..
[ V B Gupta, J.] Sd/-
..
[Rekha Gupta] Satish