Improvement Trust vs J.K.GUPTA

RESPONDENT/complainant had applied for the allotment of 400 sq. yards plot to the appellant (respondent before the District Forum), Chairman, Phagwara Improvement Trust, Phagwara (hereinafter called the Improvement Trust), against a scheme notified by the Improvement Trust. An earnest money of Rs. 8,000/- was deposited with the Trust vide Receipt No. 0118 dated 11.2.1991.

THE grievance of the complainant before the District Forum was that he should be refunded the earnest money of Rs. 8,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a. as according to him the scheme under which the plot applied for was to be allotted stood dropped. THE opposite party i.e. Trust in its reply before the District Forum submitted that the Scheme No. 3 under which the complainant had applied for the plot has not been dropped but the same was very much in existence and allottees have been allotted plots by draw of lots. It was further stated in the reply by the Trust that there was no rule by which the earnest money was to be refunded suo motu at any stage. After the draw of lots, when the plot was not allotted to the complainant, he was required to file application for refund of earnest money alongwith original receipt, but the complainant never did the same and therefore, in the absence of non-delivery of the original receipt of payment, the respondent could not refund the earnest money. However, they were ready to refund an earnest money of Rs. 8,000/- if the complainant applied to them alongwith the original receipt. After hearing the arguments on behalf of the parties, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kapurthala (hereinafter called District Forum), directed the opposite party i.e. the Trust to refund Rs. 8,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a. w.e.f. the date of receipt till payment to the complainant.

Aggrieved against this order, appeal has been filed by the Trust before us. We have heard Sh. J.K. Gupta who is present in person and have gone through the record of the case. We find that the District Forum has erred in law and on facts in allowing the complaint on the basis of the order of the U.T. State Commission in Punjab Urban Planning Development Authority & Ors. v. Mukhtiar Singh & Ors., I (1998) CPJ 655=1998 (1) CPR 691. The facts of the case in hand are entirely different from the facts of that case. In Mukhtiar Singh''s case (supra), the complainant had deposited the earnest money with regard to a scheme which did not mature at all but still the earnest money deposited by the complainant remained lying with the Housing Development Board since 1989 till 20.6.1996. It was in that situation that the retention of amount belonging to the complainant for a period of more than 2 years was held to be deficiency in service and the complainant was held entitled to 18% interest after 2 years of his deposit till re-payment.

IN the case in hand, though the complainant had deposited an amount of Rs. 8,000/- as earnest money with regard to Scheme No. 3 but the same scheme was not dropped and that was still in existence. It has been specifically stated in reply of the Trust that the Scheme No. 3 under which the plot was applied for by the complainant had not been dropped, rather the same is very much in existence and allottees have been allotted the plots by draw of lots. IN these circumstances, it was for the complainant to approach the Trust for refund of the deposit made by him alongwith the original receipt vide which the earnest money was deposited with the Trust. Neither there is any evidence on the record, nor it has been shown to us by the respondent who is present in person that at any point of time he ever applied for the refund of the earnest money. IN view of our discussion made above, we set aside the order dated 26.11.1998 of the District Forum and accept the appeal, without any order as to costs. The earnest money, if not refunded, shall be refunded to the respondent forthwith. Appeal allowed.