U.P. AVAS VIKAS PARISHAD vs KAILASH CHANDRA KANPAL

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 7.1.1998 passed by the District Forum, Nainital whereby the complaint of the complainant was allowed along with interest @ 18% and compensation of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) and cost of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) was also allowed.

THE brief facts of the case are that the complainant filed the complaint that he applied for allotment of a plot in Haldwani Nagar and deposited a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand). He was neither allotted any plot, nor any information was given to him, the amount was also not refunded to him. THE complainant applied for refund of his amount. The learned Forum after hearing the parties, held that the U.P. Avas Vikas Parishad is not bound to allot plot to everybody but it is its duty to inform about the status and if it is unable to allot, it is not proper for it to detain the amount of the complainant and should have returned the amount along with interest. The learned Forum held that for the three years 7% interest and after three years 9% simple interest is to be paid on the deposit of registration but the column is left blank what shall be the interest after four years. The learned Forum also held that 18% interest should be the appropriate interest, against which order be present appeal has been filed.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the records. According to the own terms of the U.P. Avas Vikas Parishad 7% interest was to be paid within three years, 9% interest was to be paid after three years and the rate of interest after four years is left blank. The learned Counsel for the appellant argued that they pay only 6% interest but this argument is against the provisions. This is not a case of simple deposit. Even if this amount is kept in a Bank, then also the complainant must have got interest on interest and in a period of about 11 years, it must have been more than double. The Forum has allowed interest @ 18%, this is inclusive of compensation as well and in a case like this where the U.P. Avas Vikas Parishad has earned interest and has slept over the matter, this interest cannot be said to be excessive.

HOWEVER, where the complainant has been given interest, he cannot be given double benefit. The order of compensation, therefore, is illegal. It is settled principle of law that where interest has been given, compensation is not necessary and should not be granted. We are supported by the rulings reported in III (2002) CPJ 124 (NC)=2003 (2) CPC 1 (NC), Satelec Power Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. National Research Development Corporation of India; II (2000) CPJ 1 (SC)=IV (2000) SLT 654, Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Union of India; and IV (2003) CPJ 90=2003 (6) CLD (SCDRD-Delhi), Rajpal Mahana v. National Insurance Co. Therefore, the order of compensation is to be quashed. In the circumstances like this a cost of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) shall be the optimum cost because these are summary proceedings and the complainant has not to spend so much huge amount in these proceedings where he has to pay nothing as Court fee. Notice was issued to the complainant, he appeared and filed Vakalatnama but for the last two dates he became absent, therefore, the appeal was heard ex parte on merits. In view of what has been said above the appeal is partly to be allowed and partly to be dismissed. ORDER The appeal is hereby partly allowed and partly dismissed. The order of payment of interest @ 18% is kept intact. The order of paymet of compensation of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) is hereby quashed. The order of payment of cost is also modified to Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only). Cost of this appeal shall be easy. Appeal partly allowed.