ESTATE OFFICER, U.T., CHANDIGARH vs SHEEL KUMAR JAIN

THIS appeal has been directed by the respondent against order dated 6.10.2004 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as District Forum), whereby the complaint was accepted and the appellant was directed to refund Rs. 5000 to the complainant along with interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of deposit i.e., 30.6.1981 till the date of order i.e., 6.10.2004, besides Rs. 550 as costs. Future interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of order till payment was also allowed.

BRIEFLY stated the facts are that the respondent (complainant) had applied for the allotment of industrial plot measuring 2 kanal in the Industrial Area, Chandigarh, on lease hold basis for 99 years, on 27.1.1998 and had deposited Rs. 1000 through Bank Draft. He had further deposited Rs. 2500 vide Bank Draft dated 17.3.1999 on account of additional earnest money and receipt dated 4.8.1979 was issued. He also deposited Rs. 1,500 vide receipt dated 30.6.1981. He was called by the District Industries Officer, Chandigarh, vide letter dated 4.7.1978 for verification of particulars but thereafter for about 10 years he did not receive any intimation. However, later on he had received letter dated 19.2.1996 in response to his letter dated 26.10.1995 and was asked to see the appellant for refund of the amount but when he visited the office, he was told that due to controversy pending in the High Court, he could not be allowed refund of the amount. Later on, through advertisement, he came to know that his name was not figured in the list published by the High Court and unnecessarily the plot was not allotted to him, nor the amount was refunded. The appellant contested the complaint and stated that the plot could not be allotted to him due to controversy pending in the High Court and the amount was also not refunded to him for non-completing the formalities. Parties adduced their evidence by way of affidavits. After hearing Counsel for the parties, the complaint was accepted vide order dated 6.10.2004 as stated in the earlier part of the judgment. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent (O.P.) has filed the present appeal. Respondent (in appeal) did not appear when the appeal was fixed for arguments, so, he was proceeded against ex parte. We have heard Counsel for the appellant and carefully gone through the file.

The appellant (respondent in the complaint) has not produced on file any letter confirming that the complainant had failed to complete the formalities for refund of the amount. It was obligatory on the part of the appellant to refund the amount after completing the formalities and since, it had not refunded the amount without any reason and utilized the same, so, there was deficiency in service and it is liable to refund the same. The District Forum has allowed interest @ 10% p.a. The appellant must have deposited the amount in the Saving Bank account where maximum interest is @ 6%. Therefore, interest awarded is on higher rate. Even in the year 1978-79 it is doubtful that simple interest at Saving Bank rate was 10% p.a., therefore, it is reduced to 6% p.a. With this modification, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. Appeal dismissed.