Punjab Urban Planning & Dev. Authority vs Bhupinder Singh

7. The appellant herein contested the several proceedings initiated by the unsuccessful applicants and took a plea that no interest was required to be paid on the amount deposited by the complainants on account of the fact that it had been categorically mentioned in the advertisement inviting applications that no 8 interest would be payable on the earnest money. On the basis of the evidence before it the District Forum allowed the complaints and awarded a cost of Rs.550/- in each case and also directed PUDA to pay interest on the amount deposited as earnest money at the rate of 18% per annum for the period up to the date of payment of the total amount to the complainants, less a period of two years from the date of deposit.

9. Concurring with the view expressed by the District Forum and relying upon the decision of the National Commission in the case of S.P. Davaskar vs. Housing Commissioner Karnataka Housing Board, reported in 1977 CCJ 360, the Appellate Forum came to the conclusion that according to the law as explained by the National Commission in its above decision, PUDA was required to pay interest on the amounts deposited which were kept by the Board for a period of 2 years or more. The Consumer 10 Disputes Rederessal Commission, Chandigarh, accordingly dismissed the appeals preferred by PUDA upon holding that the District Forum had rightly allowed the interest at a rate which was neither excessive nor unreasonable.

10. The said decision of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh was challenged by PUDA before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, by way of Revision. The same was, however, dismissed by the National Commission which agreed with the decision of the District Forum directing PUDA to pay interest on the deposits made in 1989 and left unreturned till 1996, at the rate of 18% per annum for the period commencing from two years after the date of deposit till the date of payment.

15. At this stage it may be indicated that when the appeals were taken up for final hearing on 3.4.2008, no one appeared on behalf of the respondents in any of the appeals, and, accordingly, fresh notices were issued to the respondents indicating that in the event they were not represented on the next date of 14 hearing, the appeals would be heard and disposed of finally in the absence of the respondents. The Office Report dated 5.5.2008, indicates that notices had been issued to all the respondents on 9.4.2008 but neither the AD Cards nor the unserved covers have been received back. Since one month had expired when the appeals were again listed for hearing and still no one was present on behalf of the respondents, the appeals were taken up for hearing in their absence.

21. We, therefore, allow the appeals in part and direct that the rate of interest payable by the appellant, as directed by the District Forum and upheld by the State Commission, at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of actual payment shall stand reduced to 10% for the period in question. The cost of litigation granted by the District Forum is also set aside.

22. There will be no order as to costs.