IMPORTANT POINT
Whether notice was served ought to be decided as preliminary issue.

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. Learned counsel for both the sides agree that the appeal may be disposed of at this stage.

3. This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 29th May, 2012 passed by the National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short ‘the National Commission’)in First Appeal No.42 of 2012, whereby the appeal filed by the appellant-Kanpur Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘Authority’) against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’)dated 14th October, 2011 was dismissed.

4. According to the appellant-Authority vide its office order dated 31st October, 1992 it was determined that in the matter of allotment of any home or plot, if any dispute arises and it does not remain possible to complete the registration proceedings or to handover the possession in lieu thereof, an alternate house or plot shall not be offered and the amount deposited by the allottee shall be returned back to him alongwith the interest as per the rate of post office saving account.

5. In response to an advertisement issued by the appellant-Authority in the year 2005 for sale of various plots by auction pursuant to the Kakadeo Scheme, the respondents being interested to purchase one of the plots bearing Plot No.6 in Block M admeasuring 1364.15 sq.mtr., participated in the auction. The price of the said plot was fixed by the appellant- Authority at Rs.8,000/- per sq.mtr. with a condition precedent to deposit Rs.11,00,000/- as registration fee.

6. Pursuant to the guidelines dated 31st October, 1992, the respondents filed an affidavit on 18th August, 2005 before the appellant-Authority, that if in giving the possession of the allotted plot, any delay is caused in land acquisition or judicial processes or due to the non-completion of the contract within the prescribed time or due to any other unavoidable reason, then they shall not be having any right to claim damages.

7. As the respondents were successful as the highest bidders, they were allotted the aforesaid plot vide a letter No.D/605/JointSecretary/ZoneNo.2 /2005-06 dated 20th August, 2005 whereunder the premium of the said plot was fixed at Rs.11,700/- per sq.mtr. They were informed that the remaining 3/4th of the premium was to be paid in four quarterly installments alongwith 15% of the interest while the amount of the first installment was Rs.32,76,623/-, payable on 1st October, 2005.

8. Earlier, the respondents in their affidavit filed before the appellant-Authority stated that they were ready to accept all the terms and conditions in the allotment of the plot.

9. Before giving possession of the plot to the respondents, in a civil proceeding, the Civil Court, Kanpur issued a temporary injunction. It was immediately conveyed by the appellant-Authority to the auction purchasers- respondents and for the said reason the orders of allotments were cancelled by the appellant-Authority. The respondents thereafter filed a Writ Petition No.27893 of 2006 before the Allahabad High Court wherein the High Court by order dated 23rd May, 2006 directed the appellant-Authority to decide the representation/application of the respondents within three months.

10. The case of the appellant-Authority is that in compliance of the order of the High Court dated 23rd May,2006 the appellant-Authority decided the application of the respondents and refunded their entire deposited amount of Rs.1,53,62,528/- vide Cheque dated 28th October, 2006 as per the rules and in absence of any rule or guideline, no damage was paid.

11. After the receipt of the amount, the respondents filed a Complaint No.25 of 2007 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow for the following reliefs:

“a. A sum of Rs.32,49,174.67p.; on account of accrued interest @1.5 per mensum on Rs.1,53,62,528/- from the date of deposit till its refund alongwith pendent lite and fu