CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR, H.U.D.A vs Sarla Rani

HEARD Mr. Aman Chaudhary, Advocate for the appellant. We have perused the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum-I) in Complaint Case No. 1084 of 1998 decided on 5.3.2001 against which this appeal has been filed by the Chief Administrator, H.U.D.A., Sonepat.

A perusal of the order passed by the District Forum-I will go to show that the respondent Smt. Sarla Rani r/o House No. 210, Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh applied for allotment of plot in Sector 23, Sonepat under a Scheme floated by the appellant. The draw of lots was held and the complainant was successful therein and was allotted Plot No. 1075-P measuring 300 sq. mts. In due course, letter of allotment bearing No. 7371 dated 6.8.1991 was issued to the respondent Smt. Sarla Rani. The complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 2,90,615/- in instalments but still the physical possession of the plot allotted was not offered to her. She waited for about seven years and when she was still not successful in getting the possession of the allotted plot, she sought refund of the amount deposited along with interest. Feeling aggrieved she has filed the aforesaid complaint. The opposite parties appeared before the District Forum-I and filed reply wherein factual aspects of the case were admitted. The defence taken before the District Forum-I was that though a sum of Rs. 2,90,615/- were deposited in instalments by the complainant but still a sum of Rs. 18,979/- were to be paid towards the enhanced price of the plot allotted. It was also contended that the development work in the area was at an advanced stage and possession was likely to be given in the near future. Even the territorial jurisdiction of the Forum was questioned and the opposite parties sought dismissal of the complaint on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The complainant filed replication wherein she controverted the allegations made in the reply which were contrary to the case set up in the complaint case. It was specifically mentioned that a sum of Rs. 2,90,615/- was deposited with the opposite parties since 14.3.1991 to 7.11.1997 at Chandigarh. The offer of allotment was made and received at Chandigarh and, therefore, the District Forum at U.T., Chandigarh had the requisite territorial jurisdiction to hear and decide the case.

Evidence was led by the complainant who filed her affidavit. The opposite parties/appellant filed affidavit of Shri Dharam Pal, Estate Officer, Sonepat. The District Forum-I allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs. 2,90,615/- with interest @ 10% per annum from respective dates of deposits till the date of actual payment. Apart from it, sum of Rs. 2,000/- was awarded towards costs of the complaint.

THE opposite parties felt dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum-I and have filed this appeal. We find from perusal of the judgment of the District Forum-I that the case of the complainant/respondent Smt. Sarla Rani for refund of the amount deposited by her in pursuance of the allotment of plot which was done way back on 6.8.1991 was legally and validly considered and allowed as she could not get physical possession of the plot allotted to her. Mr. Aman Chaudhary, Advocate, learned Counsel for the appellant could not show to us any error either in law or in facts committed by the District Forum-I in allowing the refund of the amount which remained in deposit with the appellant. The respondent/complainant had a legal right of asking for the refund of the amount deposited by her on the ground that there was no offer made by the appellant regarding the possession of the plot allotted to her and the possibility of offer of possession was not in sight. Be that as it may, the respondent/complainant was entitled to the refund of the amount deposited by her and we do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum-I regarding the refund of the amount. So far as the payment of interest of the amount of refund is concerned, the District Forum followed the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of H.U.D.A. & Anr. v. R.K. Goel, and awarded interest on the amount of refund @ 10% per annum.

RESULTANTLY, we find no infirmity in the order of the District Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh either on fact or in law and dismiss this appeal in limine. Copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of charges. Appeal dismissed.