PUNJAB URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. ANIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-Punjab Urban Development Authority (for short hereinafter referred to as PUDA) feels aggrieved by the order dated 5.11.2003 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U. T. , Chandigarh (for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) in Complaint Case No 865 of 2002 vide which the District Forum allowed the refund of a sum of Rs.40,000/- deposited by the predecessor-in-title of the complainant namely late Shri Vakil Chand with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of deposit and a further sum of Rs.63,000/-, has filed this appeal.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the appellant felt aggrieved particularly from the date, the interest has been awarded on the aforesaid amount directed to be refunded, which in the instant case is the date of deposit of the respective amounts. Mr. C. M. Makkar, Advocate appearing for the appellant-PUDA contended that the District Forum should have awarded interest from the date the respondent/complainant produced the succession certificate on the death of his predecessor-in-title late Shri Vakil Chand. While submitting the arguments on merit, Mr. C. M. Makkar, Advocate had submitted that the appellant was justified in demanding from the respondent/complainant an affidavit by way of an undertaking that he will comply with the terms and conditions of the allotment and the relevant rules governing the same and since such an undertaking was not filed and instead a legal notice was served, the allotment which was made in favour of his predecessor-in-title late Shri Vakil Chand was not transferred in favour of the complainant.

(3.) We, however, find that this submission has no merit inasmuch as once the succession certificate was filed by the respondent/complainant before the appellant -PUDA, the appellant/complainant stepped into the shoes of his predecessor-in-title late Shri Vakil Chand who had in his own right filed an undertaking to comply with the terms and conditions of allotment and the relevant rules governing the same and that undertaking would enure for the benefit of PUDA insofar as the respondent/complainant is concerned. It was not a case of fresh allotment to be made in favour of the respondent/complainant.