HUDA vs Bhagwan Dass

THE Haryana Urban Development Authority appeals against the order of the District Forum, Gurgaon granting the marginal relief of interest @ 12% for a period of 8 to 9 months on the deposited amount of the respondent-consumer.

PLAINLY enough the matter is in a narrow compass and the facts may be noticed with utmost brevity. Admittedly the respondent had applied for the allotment of a plot in a scheme projected by the appellant and along with the same had deposited the requisite amount of Rs. 9,9007way back in 1990. In the draw of lots that followed the respondent was not successful and it was his grievance that despite his presistent visits to the office of the appellant for seeking the refund of the aforesaid amount, the same was not done. Unable to get redress, he preferred the complaint to claim the same with interest and compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- . The appellant in its reply admitted the broad matrix of facts including the deposited amount and the fact of the respondent having been unsuccessful in the draw of lots. It was however, the stand that a cheque dated the 26th of September, 1990 was mailed to the address of the respondent. But the postal envelope was returned back undelivered because of a change of the address of the respondent. The relevant documents of the phototstat copy of the cheque and the covering letter were also placed on the record. The District Forum on the basis of the materials before it, held that the appellants were not in serious default in so far as the refunded amount had remained undelivered to the respondent for a plausible reason. However, it took the view that despite full notice of the claim in November 1992, the appellants had defaulted in tendering the amount due to the respondent and consequently granted the relief noticed at the very out-set.

Mr. Ashok Gupta, the learned Counsel for the appellant with considerable persistence and ability has sought to argue that whilst the appellants were ever willing to refund the original deposit of Rs. 9,900/- , they should not be burdened with any interest. Somewhat hyper-technically, it was argued that the District Forum having held that there was no serious deficiency on the part of the appellant, it should not have proceeded to give any further relief.

WE are unable to find any modi-cum of merit in the aforesaid submission. What first meets the eye is the fact that admittedly the respondent was unsuccessful in the draw and was consequently entitled to the refund of his amount with reasonable expedition. The appellant HUDA seems to be labouring under some mis-apprehension on the score that it is for the depositor to make applications for refund and go to their door with a begging bowl to get their money back. WE are not quite able to appreciate that approach, because it appears to us that in the case of unsuccessful applicants, the duty is clearly cast on the appellant to refund the amounts with reasonable expedition. Herein, the respondent''s case was that he had persistently knocked at the offices of the appellants for the refund of his money without redress and was thus compelled to file the complaint. The stand on the face of it is plausible, but what in any case is manifest on the record is that the appellants have enjoyed the benefit of the deposit fro well-nigh more than three years by now and are vainly bringing against the marginal grant of interest for merely eight months. Mr. Gupta''s argument that the District Forum had found no deficiency on the part of the appellant borders on the hyper-technical. The District Forum, though it could have expressed the matter with greater clarity, obviously was of the view that as regards the inability of the respondent to receive the refunded cheque, there was not much blame to be laid at the door of the appellant. However, it was patently right that even after a full fledged notice of the claim, the appellants had not chosen to tender the amount for nearly 10 months, therefore. That finding appears to us as an impeccable one and deserves to be affirmed.

FOR the fore-going reasons, there is no merit in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed however, without any order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.