Kanpur Development Authority vs BRAHMA KUMAR DUBEY

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 22.3.1994 passed by District Consumer Forum, Kanpur Nagar in Complaint Case No 216/1993.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 200/- on 13.12.1963 for allotment of a plot. An advertisement was published on 2.10.1986 that the persons who have deposited the amount between the years 1960 and 1975 will get the plot. THEreafter the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 2,600/- on 19.12.1986. An advertisement was published on 28.5.1988 that the allotment shall be done on lottery basis. THE complainant has alleged that this was a bad system on the count that the allotment in the name of the persons who got their names previously registered were not allotted the plots on the basis of preference on the principle of first come first serve. THE complainant alleges that no plot has been allotted to him, hence he has prayed that he should be given a plot of 200 sq. mtrs. at the rate of Rs. 104/- per sq. mtr. and compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The opposite party in its written version has alleged that the allotment is done either on auction or the lottery system. As the plot has not been allotted in lottery system, hence he can take back the money.

The learned District Consumer Forum, after considering the case of the parties, directed that a sum of Rs. 2,800/- be refunded to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 1.7.1992 till the date of refund. A sum of Rs. 2,000/- was also awarded as damages along with Rs. 200/- as cost.

AGGRIEVED against this order, the appellant Kanpur Development Authority has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by learned District Forum. None was present when the case was called, hence we have perused the file. A perusal of file will go to show that the Kanpur Development Authority was constituted in the year 1974 and before that Nagar Mahapalika was in existence. The applicant who had deposited Rs. 200/- on 13.12.1963 with the Nagar Mahapalika should deposit another amount on an advertisement published by the Kanpur Development Authority on 2.10.1986. The advertisement provided that those persons who have deposited the money between 1960 to 1965 will get the plot from Kanpur Development Authority and should obtain the booklet and relevant papers from the office of the Kanpur Development Authority. It was also alleged in the grounds of appeal that on 28.5.1988 the appellant advertised in the newspaper that the plot will be allotted through lottery system. The contention of the complainant is that he should get a plot on the basis of first come first serve is not correct. It further alleged that the lottery was to be drawn on 7.8.1988 and 8.8.1988 but the date was extended. The appellant is not bound to allot the plot to the complainant at the rates prevailing at the time when the amount was first deposited by the complainant. Thus, we find that the complainant was unsuccessful in lottery system and did not get the plot. When the complainant did not get the plot it was the duty of the Kanpur Development Authority to have refunded the amount to the complainant who had deposited the first instalment long back in the year 1963 and thereafter deposited a sum of Rs. 2,600/- in the year 1986. When the complainant did not get the plot it become clear that the amount which was deposited by the complainant should have been refunded by the Kanpur Development Authority. As the amount has been kept by the Kanpur Development Authority for long time and utilised for its own purpose, therefore, it is bound to pay the interest.

SINCE the amount deposited represented the registration amount, therefore, the interest at the rate of 18% per annum is on the higher side. This Commission has in such cases granted interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of respective deposits till the date of payment. The same principle is to be applied in the present case also because the Kanpur Development Authority should have refunded the amount of the complainant when no plot was allotted to him. There was a deficiency in service on behalf of the Kanpur Development Authority for which it has to pay the interest. The learned District Forum has ordered compensation of Rs. 2,000/- also. We do not find that this compensation is on the higher side keeping in view of the facts that the amount was deposited long back and the complainant had to suffer mental tension, torture, etc. Thus the appeal is liable to be allowed in part to the extent that the rate of interest is reduced to 10% per annum instead of 18% per annum. ORDER The appeal is partly allowed to the extent that the complainant shall get the interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the amount deposited by him with effect from 1.7.1992 till the date of payment. With this modification, the rest of the judgment and order of the learned District Forum are confirmed. Let compliance of this order be made within a period of two months. Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules. Appeal partly allowed.