HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. ANIL KUMAR KUNDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ADMITTEDLY , plot No. 34 was allotted to the respondent by the petitioner HUDA on 27.8.1991 and a total amount of Rs.1,02,926 towards part payment of cost was deposited by the respondent by 1.9.1992. Possession of plot was offered on 30.6.1994. Zonal plan was not sanctioned till 1996. In absence of zonal plan, the respondent could not have raised construction on the allotted plot and, therefore, he applied to the authority for refund of the deposited amount with interest, etc. On contest, the complaint was allowed by the District Forum with direction to the petitioner Authority to refund the said deposited amount with interest @ 18% per annum vide order dated 10.10.2002. Dissatisfied with Forum's order, the petitioner Authority filed appeal which has been dismissed by the State Commission by the order dated 4.3.2009 under challenge. As may be seen from the order dated 9.12.2009, notice in revision has been issued to the respondent limited to rate of interest. This order further notices that authority will refund the deposited amount along with interest? 12% p.a. Respondent admits of having received the deposited amount together with interest @ 12% p.a. Respondent points out that under the terms of the allotment letter, he was liable to pay interest on the defaulted installments amount? 18 per cent p. a. to the Authority Having heard Mr. Badhran, Advocate, we are of the view that if the Authority is entitled to interest @ 18 per cent per annum on defaulted installments, it cannot deny refund of the deposited amount with interest lesser than 18 per cent p. a. There is, thus, no illegality or jurisdictional error in the order passed by Fora below warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Dismissed.