Ashok Bhan, President—Complainant/ petitioner has filed the present revision petition.

2. Shortly stated, the facts of the case are:

Petitioner had applied for allotment of orchard in Mughal Orchard, Sohna Palwal Road, Gurgaon and was allotted Orchard No.A-105 by the respondent. Petitioner made entire payment. Respondent informed the petitioner that he could get the farm registered in his name. When the petitioner visited the site, it was found that Orchard No. A-105 did not exist. Instead he was allotted orchard bearing No.B-21. Petitioner refused to accept Orchard No. B-21 as the same was landlocked whereas Orchard No. A-105 allotted to him earlier, was on the main road. Petitioner approached the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘MRTPC’ for short). MRTPC tried for reconciliation of the dispute between the parties. Before MRTPC, the respondent made offer of allotment of alternate orchard. As reconciliation was not possible between the parties, the application was dismissed.

3. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the District Forum’ for short). The District Forum dismissed the complaint being barred by limitations as well as principle of res judicata as the order passed by the MRTPC had attained finality.

4. Petitioner being aggrieved, filed an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’ for short). The State Commission reversed the order passed by the District Forum and allowed the complaint. It was held that the complaint was filed within the period of limitation. The State Commission directed the respondent to refund the sum of Rs.2,89,000 deposited by the petitioner towards consideration of orchard A-105 and also to pay compensation of Rs.50,000 on account of deficiency in service, causing mental agony, harassment and financial loss to the petitioner.

5. The respondent has not challenged the order passed by the State Commission. In other words, the respondent has accepted the order passed by the State Commission. Petitioner has filed the present revision interest on the sum of Rs.2,89,000.

6. This Commission, on 8.8.2006, directed the respondent to pay the sum of Rs.2,89,000 along with compensation of Rs.50,000 to the petitioner as per the directions of the State Commission. Authorised representative of the respondent, who had appeared on that day, assured this Commission that the said amount would be paid to the petitioner by an account payee cheque on or before 29.8.2006. The only point which remains to be considered in this revision petition is regarding the grant of interest on the sum of Rs.2,89,000 which kept lying with the respondent for a period of 19 years.

7. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that petitioner is entitled to get interest on the amount deposited by him. Respondent kept the amount of Rs.2,89,000 of the petitioner for a period of 19 years. We see no reason to deny the interest to the petitioner on the said amount.

8. Accordingly, we accept this revision petition and direct the respondent to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the sum of realization within a period of eight weeks from the date of this order.

9. We presume that the principal sum of Rs.2,89,000 along with the sum of Rs.50,000 given by way of compensation by the State Commission must have been paid as per the assurance given by the Authorized representative of the respondent. If the amount has not been paid, then, the respondent would be liable to refund the sum of Rs.2,89,000 along with interest and the amount of compensation. No costs.

Revision petition allowed.

*******