MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Vs. SEEMA MAHESHWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Sec.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the 'act') against the order dated 11.3.1997 passed in Case No.15/ 1995 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Morena (for short the District Forum ).

(2.) It is not in dispute that the complainant deposited Rs.8,000/- on 27.1.1990 in the then Town Improvement Trust, Morena, for allotment of plot. The said Town Improvement Trust stood dissolved on 1.8.1994 and its assests and liabilities have vested in the Municipal Council, Morena. Inspite of efforts neither the plot was allotted to the complainant nor any communication was made. Therefore, the complainant vide application dated 8.8.1994 made a prayer for allotment of the plot. After the dissolution of Town Improvement Trust, the complainant approached to the Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council vide dated 13.1.1995 for allotment of plot or for refund of the amount of registration fee Rs.8,000/- with its interest @18% p. a. from the date of deposit. As the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, the complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum. The appellant denied the allegations and submitted that for allotment of plot besides registration fees, the complainant ought to have deposited the premium as per Condition No.7 within the specified time. As the condition was not complied the complainant was not entitled for allotment of the plot. Merely on deposit of registration fee, the complainant cannot be said to be a "consumer" under Sec.2 (1) (d) nor any deficiency of service as defined under Sec.2 (1) (g) can be attributed to the opposite party-appellant. As per Condition No.28 the appellant is not liable to pay any interest. On the other hand the amount of Rs.8,000/- can be refunded after deduction of 10% from it. The District Forum after appreciation of material on record found that no communication was sent to the complainant for allotment of the plot so that the complainant may deposit the premium. The Condition No.28 would also not be applicable as it lays down that the prospective buyers who got themselves registered for allotment of plot if are not desirous of taking the plot, registration fee can only be refunded to them after deduction of 10%. As no plot was allotted to the respondent, there was deficiency in service in not refunding the amount of registration fee to the complainant. Therefore, the complainant in the circumstances as consumer is entitled to refund of the amount of Rs.8,000/- with interest thereon, reliance was placed on decision in the case of Vice Chairman, Delhi of S. P. Dharvaskar V/s. The Housing Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board, 1995 3 CPR 376 and H. U. D. A. , Bhiwani V/s. Maha Singh,1993 3 CPR 101.

(3.) Having heard learned Counsel for the parties we are of the opinion that this appeal is devoid of any merit. True merely on deposit of the registration fee for allotment and purchase of the plot no right accrues to a prospective buyer for entitlement of the allotment of the plot. However, in the present case, the complainant approached the then Town Improvement Trust and on its dissolution to the Municipal Council, Morena either for allotment of the plot or for refund of Rs.8,000/- the registration fee deposited by her, but, neither the plot was allotted to her nor the amount of Rs.8,000/- was refunded to her. When the appellant did not allot the plot, it was the appellant's obligation to refund the amount within a reasonable time. The appellant did not refund the amount for a long period, inspite of the letter dated 13.1.1995. The appellant enjoyed the user of the complainant's amount. The appellant being State under Article 12 of the Constitution, it does not lie in the mouth of the appellant to take technical objections or for deduction of 10% under Condition No.28, when the plot was not allotted. To say so we place reliance on decision in case of H. U. D. A. , Bhiwani's case.