Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority vs SWARAN KUMAR

THIS order shall dispose of two appeals- Appeal No. 170 of 1996 filed by HUDA against Swaran Kumar of Gurgaon and Appeal No. 173 of 1996 filed by HUDA against Subhash Chander and another of Gurgaon, as both these appeals have been filed against the same order dated 29.1.1996 passed by the learned District Consumer Forum, Gurgaon, whereby the complaints of complainants Swaran Kumar and Subhash Chander alleging deficiency in service on the part of Haryana Urban Development Authority in the matter of refund of amounts deposited by them with interest thereon w.e.f. 1.6.1995 till the date of payment, have been allowed.

ACCORDING to the complainants, they had applied for allotment of plots in Sectors 38 & 40, Gurgaon, by depositing Rs. 10,425/- each with the HUDA on 14.10.1994, but neither the plot had been allotted to them nor were the amounts deposited by them refunded to them, despite repeated demands by them. In their reply filed by HUDA it was pleaded that the complainants'' application forms were not received by them, hence the question of putting the same in the draw of lots did not arise. HUDA also pleaded that they did not receive any earnest money from the complainants. Hence, there was no question of any refund. The learned District Consumer Forum, after examining the evidence on record, found that as the complainants had deposited the amounts through the Punjab National Bank, which had been impleaded as an opposite party in the case and which had included the amounts deposited by the complainants in one single lot and remitted the total amount of Rs. 3,20,12,373/- to their Manimajra Branch for being credited in the account of HUDA, (as the Head Office of HUDA was located at Manimajra), the complaints were allowed the HUDA was directed to refund the amounts deposited by the complainants with 18% p.a. interest thereon w.e.f. 1.6.1995, till the date of payment.

In the appeals before us, the learned Counsel for HUDA has reiterated the stand taken by them before the learned District Forum and has vehemently contended that there was no deficiency in service on the part of HUDA if the Bank had not forwarded the applications of the complainants. We do not agree with the learned Counsel for the appellant as Punjab National Bank was acting only as an agent of HUDA and the amounts deposited by the complainants stood credited to their account since 1995. Under the circumstances, the appeals are dismissed with costs which are quantified at Rs. 1,000/- in each case. Appeals dismissed with costs.