KUMARI JAYASHREECOMPLAINANT Vs. KIMS HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was the opposite party. In an auction held by the petitioner on 22.12.2004 for plot No. 63 in Dwarkadheesh Bahuayami Vyavsayik Scheme the respondent/complainant gave bid and deposited 25% of the bid amount, i.e., Rs. 1,76,000 the day with the petitioner. After auction Civil Magistrate (J.D.) Rajsamand passed a temporary injunction not to confirm the auction. Despite that the petitioner by the letter dated 17/18.1.2005 called upon the respondent to deposit three-fourth amount of Rs. 5,28,000 which the respondent did. On possession of plot not being handed over despite payment the respondent served a legal notice and thereafter filed complaint seeking refund of the deposited money with interest and compensation. Complaint was contested by the petitioner mainly on the ground that it had filed appeal against the order of Civil Magistrate (J.D.) before the District Judge and the amount cannot be refunded pending decision in appeal. The District Forum holding the petitioner deficient in service allowed the complaint with direction to refund the deposited amount with interest @ 15% p.a. by the order dated 28.10.2005. Dissatisfied with this order the petitioner filed appeal which was dismissed by the State Commission reducing the rate of interest from 15% to 10% p.a. by the order dated 12.1.2006. It is this order which is being challenged by the petitioner.

(2.) ON inquiry about the status of proceedings pending before the District Judge concerned, Mr. Sharma states that appeal is still pending. However, relying on the decision in Rajasthan State Industries Development and Investment Corporation Ltd. v. Marudhar Handicrafts, III (2005) CPJ 126 (NC)=2005 NCJ 760 (NC) the contention by Mr. Sharma is that the respondent is not likely to loose the title in the plot purchased in auction. ONe does not know if the appeal will be accepted or dismissed. Since the respondent has been deprived of the use of money without being given possession of the plot the Fora below had rightly passed the order for refund of deposited amount with interest. Said decisions has no applicability to the facts of present case. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the order passed by State Commission warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.