JAMMU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. DALHIT SINGH SOBTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER dated 8.2.2010 passed by the learned Divisional Forum, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as the Forum) has been taken in this appeal which is time barred by 82 days. The appeal is accompanied by application for condoning the delay on the sole ground that time was spent after obtaining the copy of the impugned order to get it factually and legally scrutinized at different levels of the administrative hierarchy. The application has not been opposed by the Counsel of the non -applicant/respondent and orally he has submitted that the brief facts of the case are that respondent on 14.8.2007 deposited an amount of Rs. 43,330 by way of bank draft after all the requisite formalities but after a gap of 14 months on 6.10.2008 the above earnest money was returned without making the payment of the cost of Rs.100 of the application form and Rs.300 spent for obtaining the bank draft. No interest as was stipulated in the notification dated 14.7.2007was paid. This refund was made in pursuance to the notification issued on 20.5.2008. The reason assigned was that process of allotment could not be carried forward as the matter was sub -judice in the Hon'ble Court of law. It was also made known that as and when matter would be decided in favour of the appellant, the available plot if any shall be re -advertised.

(2.) AFTER hearing the parties the learned Forum has come to the view that the appellant had held the earnest money by collecting the same in pursuance to the notification when the advertised plots were not in their possession. The interest was also not paid while refunding the earnest money as was stipulated in the advertisement notification. In that view of that matter, it was held that appellants were liable to pay simple interest @ 18% p.a. on the earnest money of Rs.43,330 w.e.f. 14.7.2007 to 6.10.2008. The cost of Rs.100 for application form and Rs.300 as commission for making a draft was also refunded with same rate of interest. For undue harassment and mental agony compensation of Rs. 10,000 was made alongwith the litigation expenses in the amount of Rs. 5,000. Aggrieved by the said order, the Appellant has filed the appeal inter alia challenging the same on the ground that in case any dispute would arise in respect of allotment, the decision of the appellant shall be final. That the process has not been stopped for the allotment of plots but deferred the ground that subject to the decision of the Court of law; the available plots if any would be re -advertised. That the appellant had not retained the earnest money upto 6.10.2008 (14 months) but only for 10 months because notification was issued on 20.5.2008 and the respondent did not get the money back. That the appellant had retained the earnest money for the welfare of the general public but not for their personal use of the officials. In rebuttal, Mr. Kamal Gupta, Advocate has submitted that immediately after the publication of the notice the respondents had been visiting the office of the appellant many times for the refund of money along with interest but ultimately it was not refunded. The amount was refunded on 6.10.2008. The impugned order is illegal. The Counsel of the respondent has contended that the cross -objections have been filed for the enhancement of the awarded amount. The appellant has without justification retained the money when the plots were under litigation. Without any title the plots were advertised and the amount was collected from different consumers and then refunded without any interest as well as actual cost of the bank draft. This amounts to carrying unfair trade practice which is recognized deficiency under the J&K Consumer Protection Act in rendering service. We have considered the respective contentions of the Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(3.) IT is a proved case where the appellant has collected the earnest money in a negligent manner when the plots proposed to be allotted were not in their possession. The appellant did not pay the aggrieved persons any interest as was stated in the notification making available the refund of the earnest money. The learned Forum has correctly appreciated the factual and legal aspects of the case. In this view of the matter, we find the appeal as meatless. However, the rate of interest is found on the excessive side which is reduced to the rate of 8% p.a. The amount granted by way of compensation is just and fair but the cost of litigation is reduced to Rs.4,000. With these modifications the appeal is disposed of and consigned to records. The record of the Forum be returned at once.