GAJANAND GRIHNIRMAN SAHKARI SANSTHA MYDT. AND ANOTHER THROUGH THE VIDE PRESIDENT, SUKHVINDER SINGH, SCHEME NO. 71, MONEY CENTRE, NEAR RANJEET HANUMAN MANDIR INDORE MADHYA PRADESH Vs. MAHESH TAPADIA AND ANOTHER S/O SH. SOHANLAL TAPADIA, 57, SHRADHDHANAND MARG, SANYOGITAGANJ, INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH, PRESENT ADD. SANT GYANESHWAR SCHOOL, PRIYADARSHNI SOCIETY, RING ROAD NO.1 RAIPUR CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Revision Petitions, under Sec. 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act ), by Gajanand Grihnirman Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit, Indore and one of its functionaries, are directed against two orders both dated 14.11.2008, passed by the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short the State Commission ) in Appeals No.1662 of 2006 and 1683 of 2006. By the said orders, the State Commission has affirmed the orders dated 22.11.2005 and 15.01.2004 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, District - Indore Bench, M.P. (for short the District Forum ) in Complaints No.24 and 25 of 2004 respectively. By the said orders, the District Forum had directed the Petitioners to register the Sale Deeds in respect of the plots in question with an alternative direction that if it was not possible for the Petitioners to register the Sale Deed in favour of the Complainants, it shall refund the amount deposited by the Complainants/Petitioners with them, i.e. Rs.66,500.00, in each case, along with interest @ 18% p.a. from 11.11.1997 till the date of the order as damages as also Rs.30,000.00 as miscellaneous charges and costs, quantified at Rs.500.00.

(2.) Since it is stated by learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners that as per his instructions, it is neither possible nor feasible to allot the plots to the Complainants, particularly, when there is a serious dispute with regard to their eligibility itself, the Petitioners are willing to comply with the aforesaid alternate direction. He, however, submits that the interest awarded by the Fora below is on the higher side.

(3.) Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and bearing in mind the fact that the Complainants have not chosen to challenge the impugned order, granting liberty to the Petitioners to choose between the two directions, we are of the view that the prayer made on behalf of the Complainants at this juncture for allotment of the plots to them, cannot be accepted. Nevertheless, since the Petitioners have accepted the fact that it had received the afore-said amounts from the Complainants from time to time and the Complainants have not got the plots all this while, of which the price must have gone up because of inflation, we are of the view that the interests of justice would be sub-served by directing the Petitioners to refund to the Complainants the afore stated amounts along with interest @ 15% p.a. from the date of each deposit till realization. Other directions by the Fora below are maintained.