ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Member
1. This appeal has been filed by the Appellant, D.D.A. against the order of the State Commission allowing the complaint filed by the Complainant-Respondent Co-operative Group Housing Society.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the Complainant Society applied to DDA for allotment of land in October, 1990 upon which the appellant directed the Complainant to deposit Rs. 5 lakh as earnest money as also the fact that land in Dwarka shall be allotted in about two years. Rs. 5 lakh was deposited by the Complainant on 16.11.90. In October, 1992, the Complainant reminded the Appellant for allotment of land to the Complainant Society. A letter was received from DDA in May, 1993 that allotment of land was likely to take some time. If the Complainant wants its money, it can be refunded. Request to this effect was made on 11.6.1993 but only Rs. 1 lakh was given on 2.12.93 without interest and that too upon a legal notice being served upon on appellant. Balance of Rs. 4 lakh was received by the Complainant Society on 7.1.94, since the amounts were refunded without any interest, a complaint was filed by the Society seeking interest @ 18% p.a. from 16.11.90 and damages of Rs. 50,000/-. The State Commission after hearing both the parties allowed the complainant and directed the Appellant, DDA to pay interest @ 15% p.a. on the deposited amount from the date of deposit upto the date of refund. Respondent, DDA feeling aggrieved by this order has filed this appeal.
3. It is argued by the ld. Counsel for the appellant DDA, Smt. Girija Wadhwa that it is the High Court of Delhi which had quashed the guidelines for allotment of land to Societies and asked the Registrar, Co-operative Societies to prepare a fresh seniority list of the applicants for allotment for the land. Hon’ble High Court again quashed the allotment/proposed allotment of land in March, 1993 and directed the Appellant, DDA to refund the amounts deposited by various Societies along with interest @ 12% p.a. Interest was to be given to those Societies to whom no land was re-allotted. It was also argued that no cut off date of re-allotment was mentioned hence it was decided by the appellant that all the Societies in whose case seniority number has been changed any they had not been re-allocated land upto the date of judgment of Hon’ble High Court, interest will be paid. The appellant decided that interest should be payable @ 12% if the refund is not/has not been made within 30 days from the receipt of request from the Society. The State Commission erred in granting interest @ 15% against rate of interest @ 12% awarded by the High Court which had become final and binding. It is also argued by the Counsel for DDA that the complainant is not a consumer as there is no “service” rendered by them within the definition and meaning of C.P.A., 1986. On the other hand it is argued by the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant, Mr. S.K. Sharma that the order of the State Commission has rightly rejected the contentions of the appellant/OP that amount could not be refunded to the Complainant on account of Petition before the High Court and SLPs in Hon’ble Court. The State Commission rightly held the Complainants to be entitled to interest as claimed by them. He also drew our attention to judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sriniketan Co-op. Group Housing Society Ltd. v. Vikas Vihar Co-op. Group Housing Society AIR 1989 SC 1673. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in this case:-
“Though the High Court quashed the orders of allotment in favour of the nine Societies and called upon the Government to examine afresh the question of allotment if the Government wanted to give the land to co-operative Societies, the High Court has not taken into consideration the question of compensation to the members of the Societies for the loss of interest suffered by them on their deposit amounts by reason of the cancellation of the allotment order. Since the cancellation of the allotment order has been brought about by Government’s arbitrariness, the Government is duty bound to refund the amounts paid by the nine Co-op. Societies towards the costs of land together with interest. The Government has had the benefit of the amounts deposited by the Co-operative Societies towards the cost of land for all these years and the members of the Societies have suffered loss of interest. We, therefore, direct that in the event of the Government deciding not to allot the land to the Co-operative Societies or to allot the land only to the Societies eligible for allotment as per norms and not to the other Societies and Government should refund the amount paid by the concerned Societies together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of refund.”
4. It was also argued by him that the appeal is barred by limitation as the appeal was filed by the Appellant on 12.3.97 against order dated 16.10.96. On all these grounds the appeal need to be dismissed with costs.
5. We have seen the material on record and heard the arguments. The basic facts of the case as enumerated earlier are not disputed. The only contentions point is whether the complaint Society is eligible to get interest on the refunded amount or No, if the answer is yes, than at what rate ?
5. Before going on the merits of the case, we like to deal with the preliminary objections raised by the parties. Appellant states that the Complainant is not a consumer as no service is being rendered within the definition of “service” given in the CPA. Suffice here to say that the Hon’ble Supreme Court while examining the scope of Section 2(1)(o) of CPA had occasion to observe in Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta (11994) 1 SCC 243 that “When a statutory authority develops land or allots a site or constructs a house for the benefit of the common man, it is as much a service as by a builder or contractor”. There is no doubt in our mind that the Complainant is very much a consumer within the meaning of CPA. Preliminary objection raised by the Complainant is that appeal is time-barred. We see that as per our record, there is delay of 13 days in filing the appeal – which is accompanied by an application for condonation of delay and an affidavit in support. This delay is condoned in view of the reasons given therein.
6. On merits, we see that the Complainant had applied for allotment of land and than deposited money on 16.11.90 on a written indication that the land shall be allotted in “Dwarka” in about two years’ time. In May, 1993 the Appellant was still hedging the issue and stating that some more time is likely to be taken before allotment of land is made. The two years period expired by end, 1992. In May, 1993 the Appellant still wishes to lead the complainant to an uncertain path with no firm commitment. This certainly is a deficiency in service on the part of the statutory Authority like the appellant. The orders of the High Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court are clear that in case money is to be refunded to the Societies, it has to carry the interest. In the light of this the appellant cannot escape the liability of paying interest on the deposit. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and orders of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court we will not be able to award interest at the rate of more than 12% p.a. as has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court (Supra). Only to this extent, the order of the State Commission is modified. The appeal is allowed only to the extent. No orders on costs.