ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Member
1. This revision petition has been filed by the Petitioner, Mr. P.S. Gupta
against the order of the State Commission allowing the appeal filed by the
Petitioner against the order of the District Forum dismissing the complaint.
2. Briefly put the facts of the case are that the Petitioner applied to the
Respondent Authority in October, 1933 for allotment of a plot measuring
200 m in Mansarovar Avasiya Scheme. All demanded amounts, including
irritatingly small amounts, from time to time were paid in time yet the
possession of the plat was given only in August, 2000. In the meantime
the Petitioner had moved the District Forum in 1987 asking for several
reliefs. The District Forum after hearing both the parties dismissed the
complaint on the ground that since the dispute relates to pricing on the
plot, District Forum can no go into it. On filing an appeal against this order,
the State Commission allowing the appeal and the main grounds of
complaint i.e. directing the Respondent to charge Rs. 1400/- per m for the
excess area i.e. the same price at which original plot was allotted, also
awarded interest @ 18% on the deposited amount and cost of Rs. 2,000/-
3. Main prayer in the revision petition relates to refund of certain
amount allegedly charged in excess in excess, award of rate of interest @ 21% or
18%, award of compensation for harassment, award further costs and any
other amount deemed just and proper. These are resisted by the
Respondent on the ground that consumer forums cannot go into the
question of pricing and all other relief sought have already been awarded
by the State Commission, hence petition needs to be dismissed.
4. Perusal of the material on record shows that the main grouse of the
complaint now relates to refund of amount of Rs. 19,306/- as calculated by
him in the body of the Petition. These calculations relate to the pricing of
the plot which cannot be gone into by the consumer forums. Yet even if
see the two points raised by him, we see no merit in these contentions
also. Repeatedly a point is made by the Petitioner/Complainant about
charge of interest of Rs. 2,058/-. It has been done because the Petitioner
deposited Rs. 1,34,400/- on 2.4.94 of his own will against demand of
Rs. 1,40,000/-. This was done perhaps on the basis of a wrong impression
in the mind of the Complainant that there was 2% rebate on deposit if the
remainder 50% amount is paid in lump-sum whereas as per terms of
brochure, the 2% rebate was available on deposit of full cost at the time of
registration. For the short payment interest was charged. We see nothing
wrong with this. The State Commission had also gone into all the points
raised before us and had not conceded anything in its well-reasoned order.
In case of delayed handing over of possession, this Commission had
already held in HUDA v. Darsh Kumar and Ors. (Revision Petition No. 1197
of 1998) that the consumer shall be eligible for interest @ 18% for the
deposited amount which has also been done in this case. We find
ground to interfere with the well reasoned order of the State Commission
The Revision Petition is dismissed with no orders on costs.