HUDA OF KARNAL vs MAHABIR SINGH

THIS is a Revision Petition against the Order dated February 16, 1993 passed by the State Commission Haryana at Chandigarh by which it confirmed the Order passed by the District Forum, Hissar.

THE facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass.-Mahabir Singh and Dharam Pal -Respondents had separately applied on 8th October, 1991 for allotment of one residential plots each in Sector 4, Phase II in a colony to be developed by the present Petitioner-Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short HUD A) at Karnal. They made initial deposits of Rs. 13,378/- and Rs. 9,104/- respectively with their applications. They received registration Nos. 1051053 and 1051052 respectively. They were unsuccessful in the draw of lots. The deposited amount was refunded to them without interest on 15th May, 1992. Dissatisfied thereof they preferred a joint complaint before the District Forum seeking award of inherent at the rate of 18% on the deposits made. HUDA contested the complaint and pleaded that as per terms and conditions printed in the application form no interest was payable top the Complainants. A preliminary objection about jurisdiction about also taken but it is not necessary to refer to it now as it was not pressed before the State Commission.

RELYING upon an order passed by the State Commission in case First Appeal No. 164 of 1992 titled ''Estate Officer'' HUDA v. Parmeshwari Devi the District Forum ordered HUDA to pay interest to the Complainant at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of submitting applications upto the date of the amount refunded. In Parmeshwari Devi case (supra) the State Commission had held: "Inevitably, the question then arises as to what would be the reasonable time within which the HUDA could withhold the deposits without 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."

AS noticed earlier in appeal filed by HUDA before the State Commission that order of the District Forum was upheld. Feeling aggrieved, HUDA has filed this Revision Petition. The learned Counsel for the Revision Petition argued that in the present case the question of rendering of service by HUDA never arose as no plot was allotted to the Complainants and, therefore, both the District Forum and the ''State Commission were not right in holding that there was any deficiency in the rendering of service by HUDA. We do not agree with this argument. The process of rendering of service commence when HUDA invited application for allotment of plots and in response to that offer the Complainants applied for allotment of the same and made the necessary deposits.

IT was next argued on behalf of the petitioner that according to the brochure issued for inviting applications for allotment of plots it has been specifically mentioned that no interest was payable on the money of the applicant for the period for which the same remained lying with the authority. Similar argument was advanced before the State Commission which was repelled by it in view of its observation made in Parmeshwari Devi case (supra). In that case the State Commission has also remarked: "To finally conclude the answer to the question posed at the outset has to be rendered in the negative. It is held that the HUDA is not entitled to withhold the deposits received without payment of any interest for an indefinite period of time. We agree with the above observation of the State Commission. Otherwise also we do not find any illegality of jurisdictional error in the order passed by the State Commission. We accordingly dismiss the present Revision Petition but make no order as to costs.

ORDER Mr. Y. Krishan, Member" The facts of the case are set out in the order of Justice B.S. Yadav above and do not need reiteration.

THE short point is whether any delay in refunding the amount deposited by an applicant for allotment of a residential plot, on his being unsuccessful in the draw of plots for allotment, would constitute deficiency in service attracting the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act? Since the petitioner HUDA did not render any service to the respondent, there was no question of any deficiency in service therein. The revision petitioner HUDA had also laid down in the terms and conditions for allotment of plots that no interest would be payable on the initial deposits made by the applicants. The Consumer urns have no jurisdiction to consider the question whether there was any undue delay in refunding the deposits and therefore, whether the Revision Petitioner HUDA is liable to pay rest thereon. It needs to be emphasised that the initial deposit was in the nature of part consideration paid by the respondent and therefore, the question of payment of interest on the consideration as such when it came to be refunded would not arise.

IT may also be noted that this petition s a much wider question inasmuch as there are numerous cases where consideration paid either in part or in full becomes refundable on breach, frustration or abandonment of a contract. As such, it would not be within the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forums to lay down the law on this subject. If there is undue delay in refund of the deposits/consideration and it is considered just, proper and equitable to allow interest on grounds of facts, this again would be beyond the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forums. Such cases will have to be dealt with by Civil Courts. The Revision Petition is allowed and the orders of the State Commission and District Forum are set aside.