ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Member
1. Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum, where the respondent/complainant had filed a complaint alleging the deficiency in service.
2. Very briefly the facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant having been an employee of the Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., at the relevant time became a member of the petitioner society. When the society decided to allot a plot to the members, one plot measuring 30×40 ft. was allotted to the complainant. Subsequent to this another plot measuring 40×60 ft. was allotted for which Rs. 1,11,500 were paid. It appears that subsequent to this, and on coming to know that there is another plot measuring 50×80 ft., he applied for this, which was not given to him. In fact ‘sale of no plot’ was executed in favour of the respondent/ complainant. It is in these circumstances, that a complaint was filed before the District Forum, who after hearing the parties, passed a detailed and comprehensive order dealing with each and every point raised by the petitioner and allowed the complaint in following terms:
The OP-Society shall provide a site to the complainant measuring 50’x80′ in any of their Layouts in Bangalore provided the complainant pays the sital value in that regard as fixed by the OP – Society within a period of 60 days from the date the Sale Deed is executed…comply his part of the above obligation within that time, the OP-Society shall return the said amount of Rs. 1,11,500 (Rupees one lakh eleven thousand five hundred) to the complainant along with an interest at 12% p.a. right from the date of said legal notice, i.e., from 6.5.2004, till payment. However, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties to this proceeding shall bear themselves the cost incurred in this proceeding.
3. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, which was dismissed, hence this revision petition before us.
4. We heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner at some length. There is no disputing the fact that the petitioners had received Rs. 1,11,500 by March, 1995. It is also a matter of fact that sale of no plot–of whatever size–has been executed in favour of the respondent/ complainant. Since as per the petitioner, there is no plot available, the District Forum in such circumstances directed either allotment of larger plot or refund of amount with interest @ 12% from the date of legal notice, i.e., 6.5.2004 till payment. It is the interest awarded along with the refund amount which is hurting the petitioner for which they have filed this revision petition before us. Like State Commission, we see no merit in this for the simple reason as brought out by the District Forum that money had been lying with the petitioner since March, 1995 and sale of no plot was made. Even when the legal notice was issued on 6.5.2004 and when they were not in a position to allot a plot, they should have at least refunded the amount on that date. Not having done so, is a clear case of deficiency in service, on the part of the petitioner and State Commission rightly has given interest only from the date of legal notice, i.e., from 6.5.2004 till date of payment. We see no ground to take any different view other than the taken by the District Forum and affirmed by the State Commission in this regard. This Revision Petition has no merit, hence dismissed.