Haryana Urban Development Authority And Anr. vs RANDHIR SINGH

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against impugned order dated 6.5.2011 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 1531/2008, Haryana Urban Development Authority & Anr. v. Randhir Singh, by which, while dismissing the appeal, upheld the order of the District Forum, partly allowing the complaint filed by the complainant. Brief facts of the case are that while allotting plot No. 261 in Sector 23, H.U.D.A., Bhiwani at tentative price of Rs. 93,120 by opposite party/petitioner vide allotment letter dated 16.6.1990 to the complainant, complainant deposited Rs. 46,620 on different dates towards price of the plot and rest 75% amount was to be deposited in six half yearly instalments. Complainant failed to deposit aforesaid instalments on account of non -development of area by the opposite party. Opposite party after following procedure under H.U.D.A. Act resumed plot and refunded Rs. 28,719 to the complainant after deducting 10% amount from the deposited amount vide cheque dated 27.10.2003 sent by memo dated 27.7.2004. Complainant did not encash the amount and alleging deficiency on the part of the opposite party, filed complaint before District Forum. Opposite party contested the complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint partly and directed opposite party to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the amount of Rs. 28,719 from the date of deposit till the actual date of payment. It was further directed that if amount is not paid within two months, complainant will be entitled to interest @ 12% p.a. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission against which this revision petition has been filed.

HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner at admission stage and perused the record. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is delay of only two years in refunding the amount and learned District Forum has committed error in allowing interest from the date of deposit till actual payment, hence, revision petition be admitted.

RECORD clearly reveals that amount was deposited by the respondent from 1990 to 1992 and on account of failure to deposit rest of the amount, plot was resumed and after deducting 10% amount rest of the amount was refunded by cheque dated 27.10.2003 vide memo dated 27.7.2004. Thus, it becomes clear that petitioner even after resuming plot has not refunded money immediately. Perusal of record clearly reveals that amount deposited by the complainant was utilised by the petitioner for long period and amount has been refunded after almost 11 years of deposit and in such circumstances learned District Forum has not committed any error in allowing 9% interest p.a. on the refunded amount. District Forum has not granted any other relief to the respondent. Learned State Commission has not committed any error in dismissing appeal only on the point of interest.

WE do not find any illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed at admission stage. Consequently revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.