HARMINDER KAUR Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this order we propose to dispose of above noted four revision petitions involving similar question of law and facts.

(2.) Briefly put facts relevant for the disposal of these revision petitions are that the petitioners Harminder Kuar and Mandeep Kaur moved two applications each for allotment of plot in Sector 28, Panchkula, Haryana under the scheme floated by the OPs in the year 2006. Along with the application forms, the requisite earnest money was deposited. As per the scheme, the allotment was to be done by draw of lot. The draw of lot took place on 19.06.2006. Both the petitioners were not successful in the draw of lot. It is alleged that the OPs failed to refund the earnest money despite of several letters written to them. Ultimately, the earnest money was refunded without interest on 26.06.2008. The petitioners thus filed separate consumer complaints claiming that the failure of the OPs to pay interest on the earnest money retained for almost two years to be deficiency in service.

(3.) The OPs/respondents admitted that the petitioners applied for the allotment of plots and deposited the earnest money. However, according to the OPs, they have not committed any deficiency in service because the cheques for refund after the draw of lot were sent to the petitioners at their address H.No. 255, Sector 35-A, Chandigarh by Registered A.D. Post but the cheques received back unclaimed. The OPs also raised a preliminary objection that the complainants have no locus standi to file the consumer complaints.