NAGAR PALIKA MANDAL RAJSAMAND RAJASTHAN Vs. JAMBU KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was the opposite party. In an auction held by the petitioner on 22.12.2004 for plot No. 63 in Dwarka -dheesh Bahuayami Vyavsayik Scheme the respondent/complainant gave bid and deposited 25% of the bid amount, i.e. , Rs. 1,18,750.00 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 17.1.2005 called upon the respondent to deposit three fourth amount of Rs. 3,56,250/ - 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 25.10.2005. 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 enquiry about the status of proceedings pending before the District Judge concerned, Shri Sharma states that appeal is still pending. However, relying on the decision in Rajasthan State Industries Development and Investment Corporation Ltd. v. Marudhar Handicrafts, the contention by Shri 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 decision as 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 dismissed.