M/S. URBAN IMPROVEMENT CO. (P) LTD. (MANAGED BY DIRECTORS NOMINATED BY GOVT. OF INDIA) Vs. DALJIT SINGH S/O. LATE SATJIT SINGH C/O. DHOLPUR STONE COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This First Appeal, under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), by an Urban Improvement Company Ltd., a Real Estate Developer and the sole Opposite Party in the Complaint, is directed against the order dated 29.3.2016 passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at New Delhi (for short "the State Commission") in Complaint No.244 of 2009. By the impugned order, while arriving at the conclusion that the Complaint filed by the Respondent herein, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Appellant in cancelling the allotment of Plot No.B-30, admeasuring 350 sq. yds. situated in Green fields Residential Colony, Anangpur Road, Faridabad, on the ground that the Complaint was barred by limitation, the State Commission has proceeded to direct the Appellant to refund to the Respondent/Complainant a sum of Rs. 23,505/- admittedly deposited by him with the Appellant, along with interest @ 12% p.a. from 31.07.1986, i.e. the date of deposit till the date of refund and also pay to him an amount of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for the harassment caused.

(2.) In so far as the direction with regard to the refund of the aforesaid amount is concerned learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant states that as per his instructions, the same along with interest was remitted to the Respondent by means of a Demand Draft by Speed Post as far back as on 15.12016. Per Contra, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent states that as per his instructions, the said Draft has still not reached his client. Be that as it may, it is agreed to by the learned Counsel that subject to the Appellant's making enquiry from the Bank as to whether or not the proceeds of the Demand Draft have been realized, the Appellant shall send to the Complainant a fresh Demand Draft in the said amount, in case the old Draft has not been got encashed. The said exercise shall be completed within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is ordered accordingly.

(3.) The question now surviving for consideration is whether, having come to the conclusion that the Complaint was barred by limitation, the State Commission was justified in awarding compensation of Rs. 20,000/- in favour of the Complainant, for the alleged harassment and mental agony caused to him on account of the delay in refund of the said amount since the year 2006.