Delhi Development Authority Vikas Sadan,INA, New Delhi vs Shivalkika Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. Through its Secretary

PETITIONER which was the Opposite Party before the District Forum has filed this Revision Petition against the order and judgment dated 20.07.07 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, ''the State Commission'') in appeal No.A-91/03 whereby the State Commission reversing the order of the District Forum has allowed the complaint and directed the PETITIONER to pay interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of deposit instead of from the date of creation of demand by the Respondent in terms of the order passed by the Delhi High Court in Federation of Co-operative Group Housing Society & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (CW No.4184/1992 decided on 31.03.93)- 1993 (26) DRJ 156 FACTS:- Complainant/Respondent Society applied for allotment of land for housing purposes on 15.10.90. Respondent Society deposited Rs.5 lakh along with application form as earnest money which were received by the PETITIONER on 5.11.90. Priority in allotment of land was to be given as per the guidelines issued by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Delhi. Order of the Registrar was challenged before the Hon''ble High Court, Delhi which quashed the procedure suggested/adopted by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies.

HIGH Court set aside the allotment and issued directions to the Registrar of Cooperative Societies to prepare fresh list. Accordingly, fresh list was prepared. Respondent was not allotted the land. Respondent vide letter dated 7.06.03 asked for refund of the money along with interest @ 18% p.a. Petitioner refunded Rs.1,00,000/- through a cheque dated 16.11.93. The remaining amount of Rs.4,00,000/- was refunded through cheque dated 7.1.94. On a demand created by Respondent for payment of interest, Petitioner paid a sum of Rs.33,337/- @ 12% p.a. Feeling aggrieved, Respondent filed the instant complaint before the District Forum claiming interest from the date of deposit till the date of payment. District Forum dismissed the complaint on the premises that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner as the interest had been paid by the Petitioner to the Respondent in terms of the order passed by the HIGH Court. Respondent, being aggrieved, filed the appeal before the State Commission. State Commission allowed the appeal in following terms :- "(i) DDA to pay interest @ 12% from the date of cancellation of allotment i.e. from 1991 on the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- upto the payment of Rs.1 lac. (ii) DDA shall pay interest @ 12% on the balance amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from the date of payment of Rs.1,00,000/- till the payment of Rs.4,00,000/-.

Petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present Revision Petition. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner relying upon the order of the High Court in Federation''s case (Supra) wherein it has been held that in case the land is not allotted to the Society, then, it would be entitled to interest w.e.f. ''date of notice of demand served on the DDA till the date of payment'', contends that the Petitioner was required to pay interest from the date of the notice of demand served on the Petitioner and not from the date of deposit till the date of payment. That the State Commission has erred in directing the Petitioner to pay the interest from the date of cancellation of allotment, i.e. 1991, till the date of payment. State Commission over-ruled this submission of the Counsel for the Petitioner by observing as under :- "4. Even if we accept the contention of the counsel for the respondent that appellant did not ask for refund till 1993 still the fact remains that the amount of Rs.5 lakh remain with the respondent since 1990 and pursuant to the order of the High Court 12% interest was payable even if the appellant did not ask for refund of the amount as in the event of cancellation of the allotment the refund could have been automatically made on its own by the DDA. Not only the respondent was deficient on this aspect but it was also deficient in not refunding the entire amount in one go and made one payment in the year 1993 and the balance in 1994."

AS against this, Learned Counsel for the Respondent Society relying upon the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Manjul Srivastava Vs. Govt. of U.P & Ors. (2008) 8 SCC 652 supports the order of the State Commission. Regarding interest, High Court in its order gave the following directions:- " If the DDA did not refund the money on its own then it would be unfair and it would not be entitled to take benefit of the aforesaid clause 6 and escape the liability to pay interest when a demand for refund of the money is specifically made on it by a co-operative society. In such a case, in our opinion, the DDA would be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. (supra) w.e.f. the date of the notice of demand was served on the DDA till the date of payment. The payment of interest will only be made to those societies, whom no re-allotment of land has been made."

In terms of the order of the High Court, Petitioner was required to pay the interest from the date of notice of demand served on DDA till the date of payment and not from the date of deposit of the amount till the date of payment. Inter-se order of the High Court between the parties which has attained finality will be binding on the parties and in terms of the said order, the Petitioner was required to pay interest from the date of notice of demand served on it and not from the date of deposit of amount.

AT this stage, Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner has brought to our notice that this Commission setting aside a similar order passed by the State Commission, in First Appeal Nos. 44, 49 and 51 of 1997 decided on 23.04.07 has held that the Petitioner was required to pay interest from the date of making of the demand till the date of payment and not from the date of deposit of- amount till the payment. Operative portion of the order of this Commission reads as under :- "8. The respondents/complainants have already been paid interest from the date the amount was demanded till the date of payment which is as per law laid down by the Hon''ble High Court in large number of cases, wherein the respondent was also a party hence binding on the respondents/complainants. In view of above, we partly allow the appeal and modify the order of the State Commission in above terms."

The judgment in Manjul Srivastava''s case (supra) relied on by the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent is on different facts and is not applicable to the present case. Moreover, the inter-se judgment of the High Court between the parties which has attained the finality would govern the rights of the parties. We respectfully agree with the view taken by this Commission in FA Nos. 44, 49 and 51 of 1997 decided on 23.04.07. Independently of that, we have also come to the same conclusion. For the reasons stated above, the order of the State Commission is set aside. It is held that the Petitioner would be liable to pay interest from the date of notice of demand served on it till the date of payment. Petitioner has already paid a sum of Rs.33,337/- to the Respondent towards interest. Balance, if any, be paid to the Respondent within six weeks. Revision Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.