AGRA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. ARMY WELFARE HOUSING ORGANIZATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), is directed against order dated 11.12.2007 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh at Lucknow (for short "the State Commission") in Complaint No. 91 of 1998. By the impugned order, the State Commission has allowed the complaint filed by the Army Welfare Housing Organization,(for short "the Complainant") directing the Agra Development Authority, (for short "the Authority") to pay to the Complainant, interest @ 14% p.a. on the amount deposited by them for purchase of land from the date of deposit of the said amount till the date of actual payment, after adjusting the amount of interest already paid @ 6% p.a.; in the event of non-payment of the balance amount within two months from the date of the order, it has been ordered that the interest payable would be @ 15% p.a.

(2.) The Complainant is a Housing Society, registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The object of the Society is to make available to the serving as well as retired Army personnel houses on no profit no loss basis. In January, 1991 the Complainant applied to the Authority for allotment of five acres of land in Taj City Phase-II Part-I. 20% of the total cost of the land was deposited as registration amount. Since the land was not allotted for over two years, the Complainant requested the Authority to refund the amount deposited along with interest at the bank rate of interest. There being no response, the Complainant sent a legal notice to the Authority. On receipt of the notice, the Authority refunded an amount of Rs. 26,52,247.20p along with interest @ 6% on the principal amount, vide a cheque dated 18.12.1993, which was duly received by the Complainant. However, on 10.08.1998, the Complainant filed a complaint against the Authority before the State Commission, in which, it claimed interest @ 18% p.a. on the aforesaid amount from January 1991 till December 1993, when the principal amount along with interest @ 6% was refunded to them.

(3.) The complaint was resisted by the Authority, inter alia, on the grounds that it was not maintainable as the Complainant was not a "Consumer" under the Act; having accepted the amount of refund, which included interest at the rate prescribed in the scheme, without demur, the Complainant was estopped from claiming interest at a rate more than 6% p.a.; since the scheme itself had been cancelled by the State Government the land was not acquired by the Authority and resultantly, it could not be allotted and therefore, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Authority.