HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. PREM LATA SINGHAL

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.) THE learned Counsel representing the appellant during the course of arguments submitted that the District Forum failed to take into consideration that the deposited amount of the complainant has been returned within a reasonable period after draw of lots which was held on 17.7.2000 and for that reason interest liable fastened on the appellants was not sustainable. In support of the stand taken, reliance was placed by him in case HUDA v. Smt. Nalini Aggarwal etc; II (1997) CPJ 8 (SC), wherein it was held as under: 'Held: One of the conditions imposed in the notification inviting applications for allotment was that 'No interest shall be payable on the money of the applicant for the period for which the same is lying with the authority'. Having accepted the above conditions, while applied for allotment, the respondents are not entitled to the payment of interest for the period during which the deposit was lying with the authority. It is true that there was an interlude of around one year between the date of calling applications and the date of draw of lots. It is obvious that the draw of lots was delayed due to administrative exigencies and not on account of any mala fide action of any individual; nor is there any absolute indifference on the part of the appellant in not drawing the lots. However, it is made clear that the appellant being a statutory authority is expected to perform its duties as expeditiously as possible and have the actions taken quickly. Under these circumstances, the appeals are allowed. The order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, dated June 14, 1996 made in Revison Petition No. 992/95, etc. and that of the State Forum are clearly illegal. They are accordingly set aside.' In the above mentioned case, the facts were that the last date for making the applications was 31.5.1993. The lots were drawn on 6.7.1994. The earnest money deposited by the complainants were refunded on 20.7.1994 within one month.