HOUSING BOARD, HARYANA vs DHARAM PAL

AFTER hearing the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Revision Petitioner, we find that there is force in his contention that on the facts and circumstances of this case there was no delay on the part of the Housing Board, Haryana either in making the draw of lots or in refunding the amount to the complainant after his name had failed to come as one of the successful allottees at that draw, in the circumstances, there was no justification at all for the direction given by the State Commission that the Housing Board, Haryana-the Revision Petitioner herein to pay interest at ten per cent to the complainant on the amount desposited by the complainant. Hence, they cannot be said to be guilty of any deficiency in service. The orders of the State Commission and the District Forum are set aside and the complaint petition is dismissed. No costs. Mr. Y. Krishan, Member"I agree. Since the respondents were not successful in the draw for allotment, there was no question of any deficiency in service on the part of the revision petitioner and hence it was not a consumer dispute. In this connection, a reference is invited to my order in Revision Petition No. 154 of 1993 HUDA of Karnal v. Mahabir Singh and Anr. decided on 11.5.1994.