HUDA Vs. BABESWAR KANHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The controversy in this appeal lies within a very narrow compass. The respondent No.1 applied for allotment of a plot in response to an advertisement issued by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (in short HUDA). The application was for allotment of a residential plot measuring 250 square yards, and deposit of Rs. 46,625/- was made on 26-12-2000. The HUDA intimated respondent No.1 by letter dated 30-10-2001 that plot No. 2205 in Sector 65, Faridabad has been allotted to him. The respondent No.1 purportedly, on the basis of Clause-4 of the letter, sent a registered letter on 28-11-2001, intimating HUDA that he is not interested in accepting the allotment. The letter was received on 3-12-2001 by HUDA. Referring to Clause-4 of the letter, HUDA directed forfeiture of the earnest money deposited. A complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the Act) was lodged by respondent No.1 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (in short the District Forum). By order dated 31-3-2003, the District Forum directed refund of the amount deposited along with 12% interest with effect from the date of deposit till realisation. The matter was carried in appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (in short the State Commission) by HUDA. By order dated 9-6-2003, the State Forum reduced the interest to 10% but otherwise affirmed the order of the District Forum. The matter was carried in revision before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short the National Commission). By the impugned order dated 4-2-2004, the revision has been dismissed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant-HUDA submits that there was clear stipulation about forfeiture in case the intimation regarding non-acceptance is not given within 30 days. Therefore, according to him, the forfeiture was in order and the direction for refund with interest is not sustainable in law.