ORDER : (Per: Justice B.C. Kandpal, President): This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 27.10.1993 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 341 of 1993. By the order impugned, the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the appellants – opposite parties to pay sum of Rs. 21,900/- to the respondent – complainant by 30.11.1993, failing which they were further held liable to pay interest @15% p.a. on the said amount of Rs. 21,900/- from 01.12.1993 till the date of payment. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant had deposited sum of Rs. 15,000/- with the appellants on 15.12.1989 for allotment of a house in a scheme floated by the appellants. However, no house was allotted to the complainant. The complainant applied for refund of his money, but the same was also not refunded by the appellants. Thereafter, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellants, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Dehradun. 3. The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 27.10.1993 in the above terms. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have filed the present appeal. 4. None appeared on behalf of respondent – complainant. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and have also perused the record. 5. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that no house was allotted to the complainant. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the complainant deposited sum of Rs. 15,000/- on 15.12.1989 and the complainant applied for refund of the said amount on 03.02.1992 and accordingly, a refund voucher for sum of Rs. 16,875/- was prepared in favour of the complainant and the cheque of the said amount was received by the complainant without any protest, but the District Forum did not consider the said fact and passed the impugned order against the appellants, which is liable to be set aside. 6. We find force in the submission raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. The reason being that the appellants have specifically stated in the grounds of appeal that the request of the complainant for refund of the amount was duly considered and the refund voucher was prepared in favour of the complainant. 6. We find force in the submission raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. The reason being that the appellants have specifically stated in the grounds of appeal that the request of the complainant for refund of the amount was duly considered and the refund voucher was prepared in favour of the complainant. It has also been pleaded that as the signatures of the complainant varied and hence for removal of the objection, on fresh application being moved by the complainant, a cheque of Rs. 16,875/- was sent at the address of the complainant, but the same was received back with the endorsement that the complainant has gone out of station. It has further been stated that during the pendency of the consumer complaint, the cheque for sum of Rs. 16,875/- was handed over to the complainant, which he received / accepted without protest. 7. Since the appellants have duly considered the request of the complainant for refund of the amount and a refund voucher was prepared in favour of the complainant and when the signatures of the complainant varied, a cheque was also prepared in his name and was duly sent at his address, but was not delivered on account of the complainant being out of station, no deficiency in service can be attributed to the appellants. Even otherwise, as is stated above, the appellants have specifically stated in the grounds of appeal that cheque for sum of Rs. 16,875/- was received by the complainant during the pendency of the consumer complaint without any protest, but the District Forum did not consider the said fact. The complainant has not come forward to rebut the above statement of the appellants to say that he has not received the cheque of Rs. 16,875/- and the said amount is still lying with the appellants. Therefore, in view of the fact that the complainant has not come forward / appeared in the appeal to rebut the stand taken by the appellants, it can very well be presumed that he has received the amount. 8. The District Forum has awarded sum of Rs. 6,900/- (interest @12% p.a. from 15.12.1989) and has also directed that in case the payment is not made by 30.11.1993, interest @15% p.a. would be payable on Rs. 21,900/- from 01.12.1993. 8. The District Forum has awarded sum of Rs. 6,900/- (interest @12% p.a. from 15.12.1989) and has also directed that in case the payment is not made by 30.11.1993, interest @15% p.a. would be payable on Rs. 21,900/- from 01.12.1993. The appellants have also specifically pleaded in the grounds of appeal that as per the rules and regulations of the Development Authority, the applicant registered for allotment of land / building, is entitled to interest @6% p.a. only on the amount deposited by him. The District Forum has also not considered this aspect of the matter and has awarded the interest in excess of the agreement between the parties and against the rules and regulations of the Development Authority. Even otherwise, since the amount has already been refunded to the complainant, he can not be held entitled to any interest. 9. The District Forum has not properly considered the facts and circumstances of the case and has erred in allowing the consumer complaint per impugned order, which can not legally be sustained and is liable to be set aside and the consumer complaint is liable to be dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is fit to be allowed. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, appeal is allowed. Order impugned dated 27.10.1993 passed by the District Forum is set aside and consumer complaint No. 341 of 1993 is dismissed. No order as to costs.