HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs Sher Singh

-THE appellant-opposite parties have come up in appeal against the order dated 26. 5. 2004 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Narnaul whereby the appellants have been directed to pay Rs. 19,182 to the respondent-complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of draw of lots after leaving three months period till 22. 8. 2002. In addition Rs. 1,000 was awarded as litigation expenses.

SHORTLY stated the facts of the case are that the complainant had applied for allotment of 6 Marlas residential plot in Sector-1, Narnaul to the opposite parties with a deposit by way of bank draft for the amount of Rs. 19,182. He was unsuccessful in draw of lots but the opposite parties did not refund the deposited amount to the complainant. A legal notice dated 16. 11. 2000 was also issued to the opposite parties but without any effect. Forced by these circumstances the present complaint was filed. The complaint was contested by the opposite parties. In the written statement filed, it was pleaded that the complainant had received the amount of Rs. 19,182 on 25. 8. 2002 vide cheque bearing No. 188685 dated 23. 8. 2002 and for that reason the complaint merited dismissal. They also raised the plea of limitation and not maintainability of the complaint in the present form. Taking into account the respective stands of the parties and evidence adduced on record the District Forum accepted the complaint and issued the directions in its order dated 26. 5. 2004 noticed above. Hence, the present appeal at the behest of the appellant-opposite parties. Learned Counsel representing the parties have been heard at length.

The primary grievance made by the learned Counsel representing the appellant-opposite parties is that in terms of Note-1 of the brochure issued, the opposite parties had no liability to pay interest for the period the money remained with the opposite parties and for that reason the District Forum was not justified in accepting the complaint. Opposing the submissions made, learned Counsel representing the respondent-complainant has justified the order of the District Forum for the reasons stated therein. It cannot be denied that the brochure issued by the opposite parties while inviting the applications for allotment of various categories of plots in Sector-1, Narnaul had specifically mentioned under Note No. 1 with the heading "other NOTES" reading "no interest shall be payable on the money of the applicant for the period for which the same remains lying with the authority". No doubt, in terms of the above note the opposite parties stand absolved of its liability to pay interest on the amount lying with the authority. But at the same time the brochure does not prescribe any period for return of the amount after draw of lots is held and the result of draw of lots is declared. The core issue would be as to what should be reasonable period for the return of the deposits received under these circumstances. The controversy touching the same issue was raised in case HUDA v. Smt. Nalini Aggarwal etc. etc. , II (1997) CPJ 8 (SC), wherein it was held as under: "held : One of the conditions imposed in the notification inviting applications for allotment was that "no interest shall be payable on the money of the applicant for the period for which the same is lying with the Authority". Having accepted the above conditions, while applied for allotment, the respondents are not entitled to the payment of interest for the period during which the deposit was lying with the Authority. It is true that there was an interlude of around one year between the date of calling applications and the date of draw of lots. It is obvious that the draw of lots was delayed due to administrative exigencies and not on account of any mala fide action of any individual; nor is there any absolute indifference on the part of the appellant in not drawing the lots. However, it is made clear that the appellant being a statutory authority is expected to perform its duties as expeditiously as possible and have the actions taken quickly. Under these circumstances, the appeals are allowed. The order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, dated June 14, 1996 made in Revision Petition No. 992/1995, etc. and that of the State Forum are clearly illegal. They are accordingly set aside. " in the above mentioned case, the facts were that the last date for making the applications was 31. 5. 1993. The lots were drawn on 6. 7. 1994. The earnest money deposited by the complainants was refunded on 20. 7. 1994 within one month.

WHILE dealing with the question that what should be reasonable time within which the HUDA could return the amount without interest had come under consideration in case of Estate Officer, HUDA, Rohtak v. Smt. Parmeshwari Devi of Hisar, 1992 CPC 427, wherein it was observed as under: "inevitably, the question then arises as to what would be the reasonable time within which the HUDA could withhold the liability of payment of interest thereon. Obviously no inflexible mathematical time limit can be prescribed. However, we are inclined to hold that a period of 6 months from the date of the commencement of the booking to the date of refund should amply meet the ends of justice. This of course is subject to the qualification that in a peculiar case, the HUDA may show some patently valid reason for the further extension of the time limit prescribed above. " in the above mentioned case, draw of lots was held on 11. 6. 1991. The complainant was unsuccessful in the draw of lots and her earnest money was returned after 2 months. Keeping in view the principle laid down in the above mentioned cases and adverting to the facts of the present case it transpires that the opposite parties had not cared to specify the date of the draw of lots held by it after it had received the application of the complainant for the allotment of six Marlas plot in Sector-1, Narnaul along with draft amount of Rs. 19,182 on 19. 3. 1999. It is not the case of the opposite parties that before filing the complaint they had returned the amount to the complainant. In the legal notice dated 16. 11. 2000 served upon the opposite parties from the side of the complainant it has been stated that the complainant was un-successful in draw of lots. Meaning thereby, that the draw of lots had been held prior to the date of notice. In the notice specific request was made to the opposite parties to refund the deposited amount within a period of 15 days but the opposite parties did not acknowledge the notice and even did not take any step to refund the deposited amount of the complainant. In fact the complainant received the deposited amount after three years five months and six days. Under the garb of this clause the opposite parties cannot withhold the amount of the complainant for an indefinite period or for total unreasonable period because such a right does not flow from the above stated note of brochure issued by the opposite parties. It is quite understandable that different situations may arise when issue of ''reasonable period'' for return of the deposited amount is raised after the complainant is unsuccessful in draw of lots as has been noticed in the above mentioned cases. In this case, no valid explanation has been rendered from the side of the opposite parties which held to be delay in return of the amount of Rs. 19,182 to the complainant. The District Forum has taken a period of three moths as reasonable period for the return of the amount, which cannot be accepted on the basis of evidence on record. Under the circumstances of the case the period for return of the amount has to be taken as six months from the date of declaration of result of draw of lots held by the opposite parties. In this case the opposite parties have already returned the deposited amount of the complainant on 23. 8. 2002. Therefore, the order of the District Forum is modified and the opposite parties are directed to pay interest on the amount of Rs. 19,182 @ 9% per annum after the period of six months from the date of draw of lots and declaration of result till 22. 8. 2002. The direction with regard to payment of Rs. 1,000 as litigation expenses is maintained. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. Appeal disposed of.