HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. ARUN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was O.P. No. 3 in the complaint jointly filed by Arun Kumar respondent No. 1/complainant No. 1 and his wife Smt. Bindu Bansal respondent No. 2/complainant No. 2. Chandigarh branch of HDFC Bank/respondent No. 3 was O.P. No. 1 and Vasant Vihar branch of that Bank was respondent No. 4/O.P. No. 2. Complaint was filed, inter alia, alleging that respondent No. 1 applied for allotment of 1 Kanal plot vide Application No. 23410 along with draft of Rs. 53,325 towards earnest money on 4.3.2003 through Vasant Vihar Branch of HDFC Bank, the authorized banker of the petitioner, to the petitioner. Similarly the respondent No. 2 deposited application form along with Bank draft for Rs. 13,968 with Vasant Vihar branch of the Bank for allotment of 6 Marla plot the same day. It was alleged that Vasant Vihar branch for the reasons best known to it did not forward both the applications etc to the petitioner authority. On the other hand, Chandigarh branch of HDFC Bank returned the amount of the drafts to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on 16.12.2003. It was stated that on account of deficiency in service on part of Vasant Vihar branch of the said Bank, the applications of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 could not be considered for allotment of plots in draw of lots and they have, thus, suffered loss of Rs. 18 lakhs. This amount was claimed by way of compensation from the petitioner and the said Bank. On contest the complaint was allowed with direction to the petitioner and respondent No. 4 Bank to pay interest @ 6% p.a. on the amounts of two drafts from 4.3.2003 till 16.12.2003, pay Rs. 10,000 by way of compensation to respondent No. 1 and Rs. 5,000 to respondent No. 2 as also costs. Dissatisfied with District Forum's order the respondent Nos. 1 and 2/complainants and petitioner filed appeals. The State Commission dismissed appeal being No. 72/05 preferred by the petitioner. Appeal No. 25/05 filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 was allowed and the amount of compensation to respondent No. 1 was enhanced from Rs. 10,000 to 40,000 and to respondent No. 2 from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 15,000. It is this order which is being challenged by the petitioner in these revisions.

(2.) Thrust of argument advanced by Mr. Prashant Kumar Sinha for petitioner is that respondent Nos. 1 and 2/complainants were not the consumers petitioners are not liable to pay compensation to any of these respondents, amount of compensation enhanced in appeal is on higher side. Vasant Vihar branch of HDFC Bank through whom the application forms for allotment of plots were submitted by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 was the agent of the petitioner and, therefore, petitioner cannot evade liability for payment of compensation arising out of non-forwarding of application forms by the said branch of Bank to the petitioner and consequently respondent Nos. 1 and 2 not being considered in draw of lots held by the petitioner. It being a clear-cut case of deficiency in service, the amount of compensation as enhanced by the State Commission cannot by any stretch of imagination be said to be on higher side. Objection in regard to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 being not consumers also deserves to be repelled being without any merit.

(3.) Accordingly, both the revision petitions are dismissed being without any merit. Revision Petitions dismissed.