LAWS(HRCDRC)-2005-10-2

HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. PREM LATA SINGHAL

Decided On October 03, 2005
HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Appellant
V/S
Prem Lata Singhal Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 5.10.2001 passed by District Forum, Kurukshetra whereby while accepting the complaint filed by the respondent -complainant, it was decided that the complainant is entitled to interest on the deposited earnest amount of Rs. 56,242 from 20.5.2000 to 12.9.2000 @ 12% per annum along with litigation expenses of Rs. 500. The appellant -opposite party has further been directed to pay the aforesaid amount within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order.

(2.) THE controversy in this case lies in a narrow compass. The complainant had applied for one Kanal plot with the appellant and had deposited Rs. 56,242 on 20.1.2000. As per condition contained in the brochure issued by the appellants, the draw of lots was to be made within a period of 3 months from the last date of receipt of application. The appellant extended the last date for the receipt of the applications upto 21.2.2000. The draw of lots was held on 17.7.2000 in which the complainant was declared unsuccessful. The deposited amount of the complainant was not returned and for that reason he wrote a letter dated 5.8.2000 whereby he prayed for the return of the deposited amount along with interest @ 18% per annum as the appellants had failed to conduct the draw of lots within the stipulated period of three months mentioned in the brochure and thus the appellants have been deficient in rendering service to the complainant. On notice, the appellants had put in appearance. While contesting the interest amount claimed by the complainant, it was pleaded that the amount received from the complainant had been refunded to her in due course and for that reason the complaint was not maintainable. The District Forum on appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record, accepted the complaint as per order dated 5.10.2001 on the terms stated above.

(3.) WE have heard the learned Counsel representing the parties at length.