IMPROVEMENT TRUST ROPER vs VISHAL KUMAR

-THIS is an appeal by the Improvement Trust, Rupnagar (Ropar) against the judgment and order of the District Forum dated 27. 2. 2007 by which the complaint of the complainant was allowed in the following terms: "11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the O. P. Trust is directed to make refund of Rs. 70,000 to the complainant with interest @ 10% p. a. w. e. f. 13. 4. 2006 i. e. , after expiry of three months'' period from the closing date of booking, till realisation of the amount. The O. P. Trust is further directed to pay costs of litigation to the complainant which are assessed at Rs. 1,000. Compliance be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order by the O. Ps. "

Brief facts may be noticed.

IMPROVEMENT Trust, Rupnagar (in short ''the Trust'') had got published an advertisement in various newspapers including "daily Ajit" on 22. 12. 2005 inviting applications in the prescibed proforma for allotment of residential plot in Giani Zail Singh Nagar, Ropar and in other schemes. The booking commenced w. e. f. 26. 12. 2005 and the last date of the submission of the application was 13. 1. 2006. Complainant applied for residential plot of 200 sq. yds. and deposited a sum of Rs. 70,000 by way of demand draft. It was further alleged in the complaint that O. P. had assured that the allotment will be made within a period of 3 months. Since more than 10 months had elapsed and no allotment having been made, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum. While resisting the complainant, the Trust stated in the written statement that a civil suit had been filed by one Harnam Singh and others before the Civil Judge, Ropar and an application for temporary injunction restraining the Trust of making an allotment through draw of lots was prayed for and that suit is still pending. The suit has been filed on 25. 1. 2006. Moreover, the Writ Petition No. 3801 of 2006 was filed by Ranjodh Singh and another in the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the High Court had passed an order dated 9. 3. 2006 ordering to maintain status quo till the next date of hearing and the case was fixed for 25. 5. 2006. It may be observed that till 9. 3. 2006 the allotment had not been made when the specific order had been passed by the High Court for maintaining status quo. The Trust had filed reply to the application of stay which was filed in C. W. P. No. 3801 of 2006. They prayed for the vacation of the ex parte stay order granted on 9. 3. 2006. However, the writ petition was admitted on 1. 8. 2006 and it was ordered that the interim directions given on 9. 3. 2006 would continue. Against the continuation of stay order, the Trust filed S. L. P. No. 18778 of 2006 before the Apex Court. The Apex Court passed the following order on 24. 11. 2006: ". . . . . . We request the High Court to dispose of the writ petition within a period of six months from the date on which a copy of this order is produced befre the High Court".

Thereafter a public notice was issued by the Trust in the newspaer on 15. 12. 2006 for information to the general public/applicants, who had applied for allotment of plots to get the refund of earnest money without interest, if they so desired. It was further the stand of the Trust that more than 50% of the applicants withdrew their earnest money without interest.

IN a nut-shell the stand of the respondent-Trust before the District Forum was that there could not be said to be any deficiency in service inasmuch as under the order of the competent Court, they were restrained from allotting the plot. Not only that the Trust tried its level best on the judicial side to get the stay order vacated but did not succeed. These facts are not in dispute at all and otherwise also cannot be disputed as this is a matter of record. Can under these circumstances, it be said that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Trust? According to us, the answer has to be in the negative. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the Trust in allotting the plot because of the reasons already mentioned above. The reasons were beyond the control of the Trust and they did their best to get the stay order vacated. They also issued notice in the press after the Supreme Court order that the applicants can get the refund without interest. The complainant did not apply for the same. We do not agree with the learned District Forum that under these circumstances, the money must be refunded with interest by the Trust. It is upto the complainant not to take the refund and keep the money with the Trust and wait for the allotment as and when it is done after the case is decided by the High Court or the Supreme Court. If he was to take refund no interest would be payable by the Trust to the complainant. The District Forum is wrong on this aspect. Consequently, we allow this appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum to the extent it grants interest on the principal amount of Rs. 70,000. The rest of the order is maintained. There will be no order as to costs.

THE amount deposited by the appellant while filing this appeal may be remitted to the respondent immediately inasmuch as there is no dispute regarding the refund of Rs. 70,000. The balance amount as ordered by the District Forum be remitted by the appellant to the respondent within 15 days of the receipt of this order, failing which the amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order till payment. Appeal allowed.