Holding

The Court held that the respondents are entitled to interest on the earnest money but the rate must be reduced to 10% per annum from the date of deposit, as they had benefited from the retention by participating in the second draw and had not sought a refund earlier.

Summary

In 1989 PUDA invited applications for higher‑income houses, requiring a Rs 4,000 earnest deposit and expressly stating that no interest would be paid on it. Unsuccessful applicants who did not request a refund of their deposit were later included in a second draw of lots in 1996, after which PUDA returned the deposits without interest. The applicants filed complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency of service and seeking interest at 24% per annum. The lower consumer forums ordered PUDA to pay interest at 18% per annum from two years after deposit, a decision upheld by the State and National Commissions. The Supreme Court examined whether the retention of earnest money without interest constituted a deficiency of service and whether the applicants could claim interest despite having benefited from the retention. It held that the respondents were entitled to interest but, considering they had not demanded a refund and had participated in the second draw, the rate of interest should be reduced to 10% per annum from the date of deposit. Consequently, the appeals were partly allowed, modifying the interest rate and setting aside the cost order.

Issues considered

Whether PUDA's retention of earnest money without interest amounts to deficiency of service under s.14(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Whether applicants who did not claim refund of earnest money but were allowed to participate in a subsequent draw of lots can claim interest on the retained amount.
What rate of interest is appropriate for the period of retention of earnest money.
Whether the stipulation in PUDA's advertisement that no interest would be payable is enforceable.

Legislation cited

Consumer Protection Act, 1986s. 14(1)(d)
Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995s. 23

Subjects

Consumer ProtectionEarnest MoneyInterest on DepositDeficiency of ServiceHousing SchemeDraw of LotsStatutory Interest RateRefund

Judgment

[2008] 10 S.C.R. 958

A PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
v.
BHUPINDER SINGH
(Civil Appeal No. 7727 of 2002)
B JULY 14, 2008
[AlTAMAS KABIR AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA,
JJ]

c Consumer Protection Act, 1986- s. 14(1)(d) - Compen-
sation - Housing - Interest on earnest money - Advertise-
ment for allotment of houses - Stipulation therein that interest
would not be payable on earnest money - First draw of lots -
Unsuccessful applicants not seeking refund of earnest money
- Such applicants included in second draw of lots - Unsuc-
0 cessful applicants returned earnest money but without inter-
est - Challenge to - Forums below directing the Development
Authority to pay interest on earnest money deposited @ 18%
p.a. from two years after date of deposit till date of payment -
On appeal, held: Complainants got benefit of such retention by
E participating in second draw of lots-Applicants having not asked
for refund, cannot take advantage of their lapse - More so, they
would have not raised the claim, had they succeeded in sec-
ond draw - Thus, the Authority should not be burdened with the
responsibility of non-refund of earnest money from date of de-
F posit to date of filing complaint - Rate of interest reduced to
10% p.a. from date of deposit till date of actual payment.
In 1989, the appellant-PUDA invited applications for
allotment of Higher Income Group (Single Storey) cat-
egory houses. The amount of Rs. 4000/- was to be de-
G posited as earnest money. However, no interest was pay-
able on its refund. The appellant received applications and
draw of lots was held. Among the unsuccessful appli-
cants, 1965 applicants did not seek refund of earnest
money and were not returned the same.
H 958
't·
PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING & DEV. AUTHORITY 959
v. BHUPINDER SINGH

Seven years later, PUDA formulated a Scheme for A
construction of 354 Higher Income Group Houses. The
notice was published in the newspaper that the applicants
who applied in 1989 and had not withdrawn the earnest
., money would be considered in draw of lots for 154
houses. 200 houses were to be offered to the fresh appli- B
cants at present rates. The second draw of lots was held.
The unsuccessful applicants were returned the earnest
money of Rs. 4000/ deposited by them. However, no in-
terest was paid on the earnest money even though it had
been retained since 1989. Aggrieved, applicants filed com- c
plaints before the District Forum claiming compensation
from PUCA by way of interest @ 24% p. a. on the earnest
money deposited by them. The complaints were allowed.
PUCA was directed to pay interest on the amount depos-
ited as earnest money in 1989,@ 18% p.a. for the period
0
commencing from two years after the date of deposit till
the date of payment. Both the State Commission and the
National Commission upheld the order. Hence the present
appeal.
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court E
HELD: 1.1 The earnest money deposited by the re-
spondents in 1989, when making applications for acquir-
ing Higher Income Group (Single storey) Category Houses
,.., had not been returned to the respondents, while in other
cases the same was returned to the applicants. The ex- F
planation given by PUCA that such earnest money was
refunded to those who had claimed such refund, but was
not refunded to those who did not, is not very convinc-
ing. However, it cannot be overlooked that the respon-
dents did get the benefit of such retention by being per- G
~~ mitted to participate in the draw of lots held for the sec-
ond time on 20.9.1996. Apart from that, there is also no
explanation as to why the respondents had not asked for
refund of the earnest money and allowed the same to re-
main with PUCA. [Para 16] [967-H; 968-A,B & C] H
._!
960 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R. '
1
c'1

A 1.2 The respondents did not object to the contents
of the public notice published in the "Tribune", categori-
cally indicating that those applicants who had earlier ap-
plied for allotment of Higher Income Group Houses and
had not withdrawn the deposit of Rs.4,000/- made by them
.-~

B would also be included in the draw of lots scheduled to
be held on 20th September, 1996 for 154 such houses. On
the other hand, the respondents allowed themselves to
be included in the draw and only when they proved ~o be
unsuccessful, then they moved the Consumer Forum con-
c tending that they were entitled to interest oh the deposit
which had been made in 1989 and had not been returned
~~

to them by PUDA. [Para 17] [968-C,D & E]
1.3 There is also nothing on record to show that the
respondents had even asked for return of their individual
D deposits of Rs.4,000/-, with or without interest thereupon,
from PUDA before the same was returned to them after
they were unsuccessful in the second draw of lots. De-
spite, the stipulation in the advertisements that no inter-
est would be paid on the earnest money, the District Fo-
E rum allowed the complaints made by the respondents and
awarded cost in each case together with interest at the
rate of 18% per annum for the period from the date of de-
posit up to the date of payment of the total amount, less a
period of two years from the date of deposits. Since no
F one had appeared on behalf of PUDA before the District
• -<

Forum, the matter was proceeded with ex-parte and
merely upon recording that it was specified that PUDA
had retained the amount of Rs.4,000/- from 1Qth March, ~·
1989 till 19th January, 1997, without any reasonable cause,
which amounted to deficiency in service on the part of
G
PUDA, it granted interest to the complainant at the rate of
18%. [Para 17] [968-F,G,H; 969-A & B] >i>A

1.4 In the appeal filed by PUDA, the State Commis-
sion did not give much importance to the stipulation con-
H tained in the advertisement that no interest would be pay-
t
/
/

""'
PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING & DEV. AUTHORITY 961
l· v. BHUPINDER SINGH

able on the registration fee, and without taking into ac- A
count the fact that on the basis of the said deposits the
respondents had been included in the second draw of
lots, affirmed the order passed by the District Forum. [Para
18] [969-8 & C]
...
1.5 On the failure of the respondents to ask for re- B
fund of the deposited amount within a reasonable time,
the same was not refunded to them by PUDA. Not having
asked for such refund, the respondents cannot also take
advantage of their lapse. If the respondents had sue-
ceeded in the second draw of lots, this question, which c
has been raised on their behalf before the Consumer Fo-
rum might never have arisen. It will be inequitable to saddle
the appellants only with the responsibility of non-refund
of the earnest money between 1Oth March 1989 and 19th
January, 1997. [Para 20] [969-G & H; 970-A & 8] D
1.6 The rate of interest payable by the appellant, as
directed by the District Forum and upheld by the State Com-
mission, at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of de-
posit till the date of actual payment shall stand reduced to
10% for the period in question. [Para 21] [970-8 & C] E

S.P Davaskar vs. Housing Commissioner Karnataka
Housing Board 1977 CCJ 360; George Thomas and ors. Vs.
Ghaziabad Development Authority and Anr 1999 (1) CPC 183
.. > - distinguished . F
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7727
of 2002
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.9.2001 of the
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New
G
Delhi in R.P. No. 1057/2001
1>-
WITH
Civil Appeal No. 7728, 7730, 7726, 7729 of 2002 and C.A.
No. 4366 of 2008
H
962 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 10 S.C.R.
·~

A Rachna Joshi lssar and Rupal Bhatia for the Appellant.
Bhupinder Singh Respondent - In - Person.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. Civil Appeal Nos. 7726 to 7730 ...
B arise out of a common order dated 181h September, 2001,
passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Com-
mission in respect of Revision Petitions Nos. 1056, 1057, 1058,
1136 and 1055 of 2001. Special Leave Petition (C) No. 7280
of 2002 arises out of a similar order of the National Commis-
c sion dated 71h November, 2001, passed in Revision Petition
No. 1743 of 2001. Since the five appeals arise out of a com-
.,-
mon order of the National Commission and the issue involved I

in the special leave petitions is the same, all the six matters •
l
:1
were taken up for hearing and final disposal together. Leave is
D granted in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 7280 of 2002.
2. As will appear from the materials on record, in 1989 the
Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (hereinafter
referred to as the "PUDA"), the appellant herein, invited applica-
tions from persons who wished to acquire Higher Income Group
E
(Single Storey) category houses at Phase IX SAS Nagar. Inter-
ested applicants were required to deposit a sum of Rs.4,000/-
while making such application. In the advertisement inviting appli-
cations, it was categorically mentioned that no interest would be
payable on the earnest money. About 5416 applications were re- ,,. ..
F ceived by PUDA in response to the said advertisement and draw
of lots for houses immediately available in Phase IX SAS Nagar
was held on 101h November, 1989. According to PUDA, the infor-
mation sheet, supplied along with the prescribed application forms,
made it clear that allotment of houses would be made on the basis
G of draw of lots and that the deposit of earnest money would not
create any vested right of allotment to any of the applicants. Ac- ~~

cording to PUDA, earnest money was refunded to those unsuc-
cessful applicants who desired that their earnest money be returned
to them. However, out of the unsuccessfal applicants, 1965 appli-
H cants did not seek refund of their earnest money.
PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING & DEV. AUTHORITY 963
., v. BHUPINDER SINGH [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
3. It transpires that in 1991 the Department of Housing A
and Urban Development of the Government of Punjab was
merged with the Punjab Housing Development Board. ln 1995,
the Punjab Housing Development Board which had been con-
stituted under the Punjab Housing Development Board Act,
,.. 1972, was abolished by virtue of the provisions of the Punjab B
Regional and Town Planning and DevelopmentAct, 1995 (here-
inafter referred to as "the 1995 Act"). The Punjab Urban and
Development Authority was thereafter constituted with effect from
1st July, 1995, under the provisions of the 1995 Act and was
given the responsibility for the effective and planned develop- c
ment of housing schemes and for undertaking Urban Develop-
ment and Housing Programmes for establishing new towns in
the State of Punjab. It appears that on account of non- availabil-
ity of suitable land with PUDA, no High Income Group Scheme
could be formulated for construction of Higher Income Group
D
houses between 1989 and July, 1996.
4. In 1996 PUDA formulated a scheme for construction of
354 Higher Income Group Houses on land available in Sector
70 SAS Nagar. It also appears that under Section 23 of the
1995 Act, the authority is competent to appoint one or more E I

committees for securing efficient discharge of the functions of
the authority. Under Regulation 8 of the Punjab Urban Planning
and Development Authority (Committees and Conduct of Busi-
ness) Regulations, 1996, the Finance and Accounts Commit-
~·y tee was duly constituted to perform the function of determining F
prices and policies for disposal of land, plots and houses, be-
sides discharging other functions. The said committee at its
meeting held on 241h July, 1996, considered the question of dis-
posal of the proposed 354 partially finished duplex houses in
Sector 70, SAS Nagar and took the following decision:
G
"Item No. 9.07. Disposal of 354 independent partially
~~ finished duplex houses in Sector 70, SAS Nagar.

Approved with the modification that 154 houses be offered
to old applicants and 200 to fresh applicants at present
H
964 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R.
"t

A rates .. It may be ensured that money deposited by old or
new applicants be refunded to all unsuccessful applicants
immediately after draw ·at lots."
5. Pursuant to the aforesaid decision, a public notice was
published in the Tribune on 121h September, 1996, wherein it ...
B was announced that the applicants.who had applied in 1989 for
Higher Income Group Scheme by deposit of Rs.4,000/- and had
not received refund.of the same would be considered for,allot-
ment by draw of lots for 154 such houses in Sector 70, SAS
Nagar. Subsequently, on 20th September, 1996, it appears that
c those applicants_ who had· participated in the draw of lots on
1Oth November, 1989, and had not withdrawn their earnest
money, were induded.in.the draw of lots for the 154 Higher In-
come 9roup Houses in Sectdr 70 SAS N_agar.
6. Thatall the applicants who were successful in the draw
D
of lots conducted on 20.9.1996 were issued allotment letters
and those who were unsuccessful were returned the earnest
m.oney 9f Rs.4,000/-which had been deposited by them. Since
the sa,id earnest money .was returned by PUDA without any in-
terest calculated thereupon, some of the' u'nsuccessful candi-
E dates. filed complaints before the District Forum _complaining
that despite having retained the earnest mc:mey of RsA,000/-
since 1989, PUDA had refunded o.nly the said amount without
a~y int¢re~t thereupon. The complainants in the several com-
plaints GI.aimed c,ompensation from PUDA in respect of the ~4

F ear.nest money depbsited by them py way of interest at the rate
o( 2:4% p_er annt,Jm apart from compensation for harassment,
. ' - . I , I . ~ "' .. I -

mental agony and inconvenience .. The applicants also prayed
for co~ts of the proceedings ..
'
7. The appellant .herein contested the several proceed-
G
ings initiated by the unsuccessful cipplicants and took a plea
that.no'interest was required to be paid qn the amount depos-
, # • ' \ • •
,....~

ited by the complainants on account of the factthat it had been
categorically mentibned·in the advertisement inviting applica-
tions that no interest would be payable on the earnest money.
H .,.
PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING & DEV. AUTHORITY 965
'I v. BHUPINDER SINGH [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]

On the basis of the evidence before it the District Forum al- A
lowed 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 de- B
posit.
8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Forum,
PUDA filed appeals before the Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Chandigarh. The submissions made before the
District Forum that interest was not payable on the earnest c
money was reiterated and it was also indicated that since the
earnest money deposited by the respondents in 1989 had not
been returned to them, as the respondents had not asked for
refund of the same, they had been given a second opportunity
to participate in the draw of, lots on the basis of their original D
deposit, although, the deposits for participating in the subse-
quent draw of lots held on 20.9.1996 was much higher. PUDA's
case appears to be that on the strength of the earnest money
deposited once the respondents had been given two opportu-
nities to participate in the draw of lots and that it could not, there- E
fore, be contended that the said sums deposited by way of ear-
nest money had been retained by PUDA with an ulterior objec-
tive in mind.

:>.,
9. Concurring with the view expressed by the District Fo-
rum and relying upon the decision of the National Commission in F
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 re-
quired to pay interest on the amounts deposited which were kept G

·- by the Board for a period of 2 years or more. The Consumer
Disputes Rederessal Commission, Chandigarh, accordingly dis-
missed 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. H.
966 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R.
~

A 10. The said decision of the Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Chandigarh was challooged by PUDA
before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commis-
sion, New Delhi, by way of Revision. The same was, however,
dismissed by the National Commission which agreed with the
...,
B 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 afterthe date of deposit till the date of payment.
11. It is ag_ainst the said order of the National Commission
c that the_ present appeals have been filed.
12. Right at the outset it was submitted on behalf of PUDA
that the proceedings taken by the respondents before the Con-
sumer Forum were fnvalid and ought not to have been enter-
tained by the District Forum, inasmuch as, no case of deficiency
D
of service had been made out on behalf of the respondents to
attract the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Appearing for the appellant, Ms. Rachna Joshi lssar submitted
that it had been consistently held by this Court that the onus of
proving deficiency of service is upon the complainant seeking
E relief under the Consumer Protection Act. The respondent did
not have any vested right of allotment unless they succeeded in
the draw of lots. It was submitted that the respondents on their
application had_ only a right to be considered for allotment if
they were otherwise eligible and that they have been so consid-
F ered for allotment on 10 .11 .1989 and also on 20 .9 .1996 when -~· ...(

the earnest money was fixed at Rs.62, 700/-, as against
Rs.4,000/- deposited by them at the time of the first draw of lots
held on 10.11.1989. Ms. lssar urged that neither had any malafide
been alleged or proved against PUDA in the conduct of pro-
G ceedings relating to the draw of lots on both the dates. Accord-
ingly, in the absence of any case for deficiency of service or
breach of contract made out by the applicants, the application
,_.
before the District Forum was entirely misconceived and wholly
without jurisdiction.
:
H
.. PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING & DEV. AUTHORITY 967
v. BHUPINDER SINGH [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]

13. Ms. lssar also urged that when initially the draw of lots A
was held on 10.11.1989, those unsuccessful applicants who
desired refund of their earnest money were given such refund
immediately. Out of the unsuccessful candidates 1965 appli-
cants did not seek refund of their earnest money which was
retained by PUDA to give such applicants an opportunity to par- 8
ticipate in the next draw of lots. Mr. lssar also reiterated that in
the advertisement inviting applications it had been clearly indi-
cated that no interest would be payable on the earnest money
deposited and that having regard to the above the respondents
should have asked for refund of the amount deposited by them c
without waiting for the same to be refunded by PUDA.
14. Ms. lssar submitted that the respondents should not
be allowed to approbate and reprobate in the same breath hav-
ing participated in the second draw of lots bn the basis of the
earnest money deposited by them earlier, and, on the other hand, D,
claiming interest thereupon after being unsuccessful in the draw
of lots. Ms. lssar submitted that this amounted to malice in law
and the claim of the respondents, instead of being allowed,
should have been rejected with appropriate costs.
E,
15. At this stage it may be indicated that when the ap-
peals were taken up for final hearing on 3.4.2008, no one ap-
pea red on behalf of the respondents in any of the appeals, and,
accordingly, fresh notices were issued to the respondents indi-
......
eating that in the event they were not represented on the next
F ,
date of 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 G
and still no one was present on behalf of the respondents, the
appeals were taken up for hearing in their absence.
16. From the materials placed before us by Ms.lssar, the
admitted position is that the earnest money deposited by the
H
968 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R.

A respondents in 1989, when making applications for acquiring
Higher Income Group (Single storey) Category Houses at Phase
IX, SAS Nagar, had not been returned to the respondents, while
in other cases the same was returned to the applicants. The
explanation given by PUDA that suQh earnest money was re-
B funded to those who had claimed such refund; but was not re-
funded to those who did not, is not very convincing. It cannot,
however, be overlooked that the respondents did get the ben-
efit of such retention by being permitted to participate in the
draw of lots held for ·the second time on 20.9.1996. Apart from
c that, there is also no explanation as to why the respondents had
not asked for refund of the earnest money and allowed the same
to remain with PUDA.
17. Furthermore, the respondents did not object to the con-
tents of the public notice published in the "Tribune" on 121h Sep-
D tember, 1996, categorically indicating that those applicants who
had earlier applied for allotment of Higher Income Group Houses
and had not withdrawn the deposit of Rs.4,000/- made by them
would also be included in the draw of lots scheduled to be held
on 20th September, 1996 for 154 such houses in Sector 70 SAS
E Nagar. On the other hand, the respondents allowed themselves
to be included in the draw and only when they proved to be un-
successful, then they moved the Consumer Forum contending
that they were entitled to interest on the deposit which had been
made in 1989 and had not been returned to them by PUDA. Of ,A I
F course, there is also nothing on record to show that the respon-
dents had even asked for return of their individual deposits of
Rs.4,000/~, with or without interest thereupon, fro,m PUDA be-
fore the same was returned to them after they were unsuccess-
ful in the second draw of lots. Despite, the stipulation in the
G advertisements that no interest would be paid on the earnest
money, the District Forum allowed the complaints made by the
respondents and awarded cost in each case together with in-
terest at the rate of 18% per annum for the period from the date
of deposit up to the date of payment of the total amount, less a
H period of two years from the date of deposits. Since no one
PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING & DEV. AUTHORITY 969
v. BHUPINDER SINGH [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]

had appeared on behalf of PUDA before the District Forum, A
the matter was proceeded with ex-parte and merely upon re-
cording that it was specified that PUDA had retained the amount
of Rs.4,000/- from 101h March, 1989 till 191h January, 1997, with-
out any reasonable cause, which amounted to deficiency in
service on the part of PUDA, it granted interest to the complain- B
ant at the rate of 18% in the manner indicated herein above.
18. In the appeal filed by PUDA the State Commission did
not give much importance to the stipulation contained in the
advertisement that no interest would be payable on the regis-
tration fee, and without taking into account the fact that on the c
basis of the said deposits the respondents had been included
in the second draw of lots, affirmed the order passed by the
District Forum mainly on the basis of a decision of the National
Commission in the case of S.P. Davaskar (supra) the facts of
which are not only distinguishable but completely different from D
the facts of the present case.
19. Even the facts of the other decision of the National
Commission in the case of George Thomas and ors. Vs.
Ghaziabad Development Authority and Anr., [1999 (1) CPC
183], relating to payment of interest on deposited amounts, is E
distinguishable on facts. If the facts, which are peculiar to this
case, are taken into consideration, the retention of the earnest
money by PUDA cannot be brought within the ambit of the two
~' aforesaid decisions. The retention of the amount in this particu-
lar case was pursuant to a policy which allowed the depositors, F
who had not withdrawn their deposit, to participate in a subse-
quent draw of lots without having to pay anything more than what
had been deposited by them, even though the amount of de-
posit may have gone up several times.
G
20. In our view, the single most important aspect of this
'llf!.-c
case is that on the failure of the respondents to ask for refund of
the deposited amount within a reasonable time, the same was
not refunded to them by PUDA. Not having asked for such re-
fund, the respondents cannot also take advantage of their lapse.
H
970 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R.

A H the respondents had succeeded in the second draw of lots,
this question, which has been raised on their behalf before the
Consumer Forum might never have arisen. In our view, it will be
inequitable to saddle the appellants only with the responsibility
of non-refund of the earnest money between 101h March 1989
8 and 191h January, 1997.
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
C 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.
N.J. Appeals partly allowed.

• .L

)-