K.K. Chadha vs U.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 27.11.2013 passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No. 738 of 2011 - U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs. K.K. Chadha by which, while allowing appeal partly, order of District Forum allowing complaint was modified.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner registered HIG house under a scheme floated by the OP/respondent by paying Rs.7,000/ - on 26.3.1982. Later on, as per demands of OP, complainant deposited Rs. 8,000/ - on 23.11.85 and Rs.35,000/ - on 21.8.1997 and new registration number was allotted to the complainant, but house has not been allotted till date. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and admitted payment but submitted that all the registrations under the scheme were cancelled and complainant was informed to get the refund of deposited amount and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to make payment of aforesaid deposited amount with 10% p.a. interest from the date of deposit. Appeal filed by the OP was partly allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order and interest was reduced from 10% to 6% and it was further observed that if the amount is not paid within two months, OP will pay interest @ 10% p.a. against which, this revision petition has been filed. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner at admission stage and perused record.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that District Forum allowed 16% p.a. interest and learned State Commission committed error in reducing it to 6% p.a.; hence, revision petition be admitted.

PERUSAL of record reveals that learned District Forum allowed 10% p.a. interest on refund of deposited amount and order does not contain grant of 16% p.a. interest. No doubt, learned State Commission reduced rate of interest from 10% to 6% p.a., but it further observed that if the amount is not paid within a period of two months, OP will be liable to pay interest @ 10% p.a. Learned Counsel for the petitioner apprised that so far deposited amount has not been refunded with interest and almost 4 months have passed. As two months '' time granted by State Commission has lapsed, now the petitioner will be entitled to get interest @ 10% p.a., revision petition has become infructuous and liable to be dismissed on this count.

CONSEQUENTLY , revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage as having become infructuous with no order as to costs.