(1.) Heard learned Counsel for petitioner and respondent who appeared in person. Factual backgrounds are that respondent/complainant was allotted site No. 2 in Sector 3, Faridabad in a public auction held on 25.6.1997 for sale consideration of Rs. 20,10,000. Following allotment of site, as required by petitioner, respondent made deposit of 25% cost of sale consideration which was to be followed by further deposit in instalments. Respondent subsequently moved Administrator, filing an application for waiver of interest over instalments in view of disadvantages of site which was also unhygienic and which did not suit purpose for which allotment was made. Respondents also moved authority concerned for refund of deposit made by them with petitioner and Administrator having considered the issue directed HUDA for refund of total deposit made by respondents. When HUDA did not satisfy the finding of Administrator, respondent knocked door of Consumer Fora filing a complaint which was resisted by petitioner. The District Forum however on consideration of issues involved having over-ruled objections raised by petitioner, directed petitioner to pay interest on deposit @ 12% p.a. In appeal that was preferred by HUDA, State Commission upholding basic finding of District Forum however, modified award reducing interest from 12% to 7%. Aggrieved HUDA is now in revision.
(2.) Two-fold contentions are raised by petitioner to defeat claim of respondent in matter of award of interest and their liability to make payment of them. Contentions are sought to be raised that since surrender of plot by respondent was unqualified respondent was not eligible for interest and secondly since plot was purchased by respondent in public auction with open eyes, it was no longer open to them to have any grievance about disadvantages of locality. Counsel for petitioner put reliance on a decision of Hon ble Apex Court in case titled UT Chandigarh v. Amarjit Singh, 2009 2 CPJ 1, and submits that since site in question was, purchased by respondent in public auction he was not a consumer claiming waiver of interest or even rate of interest paid by them. Having considered submissions made and authoritative decision of Hon ble Apex Court, there being substance in logic advanced by petitioner finding of State Commission is set aside. Revision petition resultantly succeeds. I am told that respondent has already been paid total refund by petitioner. No further payment is required to be made in this matter.