HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. VEENA KAKKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE , revision petitions have arisen out of the common order dated 7th of December, 1993 passed by the Haryana State Commission at Chandigarh in First Appeal Nos. 521 & 522/93 upholding the common order of the District Forum, Hissar granting the relief of payment of interest at the rate of 18% per annum for the period for which the earnest money remained in deposit with the Haryana Urban Development Authority.

(2.) THE facts lie in a narrow compass and may be noticed. Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short called HUDA) invited applications in the prescribed form, subject to terms and conditions mentioned therein, in accordance with the Haryana Urban Development (Disposal of the Land Building) Regulations, 1978 made under Section 54 of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977. The complainant applied for allotment of plot measuring 10marlas in. Sector 55, Gurgaon and deposited Rs. 23,324/ - as earnest money on 19.2.1992. The draw of lots for allotment of plots was conducted on 5.9.1992 but the complainant was not successful in the draw of the lots. The amount of the earnest money was refunded by cheque dated 21.9.1992 in favour of the complainant. The complainant had also applied for allotment of another plot in Sector 45, Faridabad and made a deposit of the earnest money of Rs. 23,931/- on 25.1.1992. The draw of lots was concluded on 28th July, 1992 but the complainant was unsuccessful in getting the plot. The earnest money of Rs. 23,931/- was refunded to the complainant on 17th of August, 1992. The complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Hissar claiming interest at 18% per annum for the period the amount of earnest money remained in deposit with HUDA and Rs. 5,000/- as compensation/damages. The District Forum allowed the two complaints and granted interest on the deposited amount at J8% per annum for the period during which the money remained with HUDA. The petitioner herein filed two appeals before the State Commission challenging the validity of the orders of the4 District Forum but the First Appeals were dismissed by the State Commission by the impugned order dated 7th of December, 1993.

(3.) THE matters came up for hearing before this Commission. We have heard Mr. Ravindra Bana, Counsel for the HUDA and also Mr. Brij Lal Bishnoi, Counsel for the respondent. This Commission in a recent judgment dated 5th of May, 1997 in Revision Petition No. 672 of 1996 (Estate Officer, PUD A v. Jaspal Singh Dara) had considered in great detail whether there is any liability to pay interest on the earnest money deposited for allotment of plots. The applicants had deposited the earnest money alongwith the applications knowing fully well that no interest was to be paid on the earnest money. The registration of applications with deposit of earnest money gave right of participation in the draw of lots. The names of the registered applicants had to be included in the draw of lots to be held as the number of plots were limited and those who had not got the plots had to be refunded the deposit made by them and under the scheme no interest was paid on the refund of the earnest money. The Punjab Housing Development Board and the Haryana Urban Development Authority, no doubt render service as defined in Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the complaint under Section 12 of the Act is maintainable only if the service so rendered suffers from deficiency as defined in Section 2(1)(g) of the Act. This question has been settled by the Supreme Court in Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, 1996 1 CPR 569