DHARMENDRA KUMAR GUPTA Vs. M P HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was the complainant before the District Forum where he had filed a complaint alleging deficiency on the part of the respondent/O.P. - M.P. Housing Board.

(2.) Facts of the case are that the petitioner had booked a H.I.G. House with the respondent and was allotted HIG House No. BH-99 in Deendayal Nagar. Respondent in all deposited Rs. 3,90,000/- and consequently an agreement was signed between the parties on 14.1.1998 - the respondent having received the full amount of Rs. 3.90 lakhs paid by the complainant from time to time. However the possession of the house was not given. On 15.6.1998, the complainant asked for return of the amount with interest, which was not done. It is in these circumstances that a complaint was filed before the District Forum. During the pendency of the complaint only part of the deposited amount was returned after deducting 10% of the Registration amount and economic rent for five months i.e. from the date of agreement (14.1.1998) to the date on which the complainant asked for return of amount (15.6.1998) which came to Rs. 65,250/-. District Forum after hearing the parties directed the respondent to refund the full amount of Rs. 3.90 lakhs along with interest @ 18% from 23.1.1998 and Rs. 1,000/- as costs. On an appeal being filed by the respondent, the State Commission modified the order of the District Forum and directed the respondent Housing Board to refund of Rs. 65,250/-deducted by them for the amount refunded to the petitioner. It is against this order that the revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/complainant. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the order of the District Forum was the correct order which needs to be restored whereas the argument of the respondent is that order of the State Commission need no interference.

(3.) We have seen the material on record and heard the arguments. Admitted position is that agreement for the house was signed on 14.1.1998. Possession was not given on account of reasons which we need not go into. On 15.6.1998 the complainant asked for refund which was done only on 15.4.1999 but after deducting amounts under two heads, (1) 10% of the Registration amount and (2) Economic rent @ Rs. 3,050/- p.m. for five months totalling Rs. 65,250/-. The State Commission has ordered refund of this Rs. 65,250/- but without interest. We see no reason for not granting interest. Since the possession could not be given immediately after agreement for some internal reasons of the respondent, the petitioner cannot be faulted or penalised for refund of this amount. We see no reason why did the respondent take 10 months to refund the amount ? In our view the petitioner is entitled to interest @ 18% p.a. on this amount from two months after the date of request of refund i.e. 16.8.1998 to 15.4.1999. Only to this extent the order of the State Commission is modified. Rest of the order is maintained. Only to this extent Revision Petition is allowed. No orders as to cost. Revision Petition allowed.