U.P.AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD vs URMILA GUPTA

PETITIONER -opposite party is in revision before us. Respondent-complainant had approached District Forum, Kanpur Dehat complaining deficiency in service by the petitioner on the ground that though she was successful in auction, possession of the plot was not handed over to her. District Forum by order dated 16.5.2000 directed the petitioner to refund to the respondent-complainant the amount of Rs. 3,31,670/- without any deduction and interest @ 6% per annum from 12.10.1994 till the date of payment. Respondent was also awarded cost of Rs. 500/-. It is also ordered that if the amount is not paid within 60 days from the date of the order, respondent would be entitled to get interest @ 18% per annum from 12.10.1994 till payment. Admittedly, petitioner did not pay the amount within 60 days period granted to it and, therefore, interest @ 18% per annum became payable. It is stated that the amount of Rs. 3,31,670/- with interest @ 6% was paid more than a year after the order of the District Forum.

AGGRIEVED by the order of the District Forum, petitioner went in appeal before the State Commission which upheld the order of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal with costs of Rs. 2,000/-. As a matter of fact appeal was barred by limitation. State Commission noticed that there was no explanation as to why appeal was filed after delay of over an year. We do not find any ground for us to interfere in the order of the State Commission as affirmed by the State Commission in our jurisdiction under Clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act. It was the grievance of the petitioner before us that interest @ 18% was excessive. We do not agree. Firstly, the interest @ 18% was payable in case of default by the petitioner and moreover in the case of Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Darsh Kumar, Revision Petition No. 1197/1998, we have awarded interest @ 18% per annum. This revision petition is dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed with costs.