MAHESH SAKWAR vs MADHYA PRADESH HOUSING BOARD

THIS order will govern the disposal of Revision Petition Nos. 3945 to 3948 of 2006 which arise out of identical order(s) dated 8.9.2006 passed by Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal in Appeal Nos. 1674/2006, 1675/2006, 1673/2006 and 1762/2006. These appeals were preferred against similar orders dated 24.7.2006 of a District Forum in the complaint(s) filed by the petitioners separately.

OPERATIVE portion of the order of the District Forum which is material is reproduced below : (a) "In pursuance of the order of Hon''ble High Court when the MP Housing Board after measurements, will get the possession of the house then without any further delay the possession of the house will be made available to the applicant as per option one, as opted by the applicant. (b) The respondent Board pay to applicant, the interest @ 18% per annum on the deposit from December, 2003 to the date of filing of application to Court of the Additional District Judge, than up to the date of possession interest at the same rate on applicant''s deposit, which was recovered by loan granting institution from applicant. Opponent Board will pay this rate of interest to applicant after furnishing the evidence by applicant to the Board. (c) The respondent Board will pay Rs. 10,000 (ten thousand rupees) to the applicant as compensation. (d) The respondent Board will pay Rs. 1,000 (one thousand rupees) to the applicant as cost of litigating."

Order of the State Commission notices that petitioners have been adequately compensated for the delayed delivery of possession. Interest at the rate of 18% has been allowed from December, 2003 till the date of filing of application for arbitration before the Addl. District Judge and thereafter at the rate which the petitioners are required to pay on their loan amounts. Petitioners argued in person in three revision petitions while the husband of petitioner argued in the fourth revision petition. It is urged that the petitioners are entitled to interest after the date of filing of application for arbitration before the Addl. District Judge @ 18% p.a. as the respondent/opposite party Board is charging interest at that rate. It is further contended that Fora below did not consider the reliefs towards enhanced registration charges and service charges. On inquiry, it is pointed out that on loan amount interest is being paid @ 10.5% p.a. by the petitioners. Complaint(s) would show that no relief was claimed therein regarding enhanced registration charges and service charges. In absence of making such relief, the claim towards enhanced registration charges and service charges cannot be considered in present revision petitions. Further, petitioners are entitled to disbursement of interest amount paid on the loan by them and not at enhanced rate of 18% p.a. There is, thus, no illegality or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by State Commission warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Accordingly, revision petitions are dismissed. Revision Petitions dismissed.