LUDHIANA IMPROVEMENT TRUST vs AJIT SINGH

THIS appeal is directed against the order of the District Forum, Ludhiana dated June 4, 1998 whereby the appellant has been directed to refund the amount of Rs. 6,000/- deposited by the complainant/respondent with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of deposit i.e. 23.4.1986 till the date of actual payment.

THE relevant facts are that the complainant had applied for allotment of plot and had deposited Rs. 6,000/- as earnest money on 23.4.1985. Sh. Jatinder Singh and Dharam Singh, sons of the complainant also deposited Rs. 1,500/- and Rs. 1,200/- respectively for allotment of separate plots to them. THE names of all the three persons were put into the draw of lots but they were not successful. THE complainant and his sons visited the office of opposite party/appellant for refund of the earnest money but could not get the same. The opposite party/appellant admitted that the complainant and his sons had deposited the amount in question as earnest money and raised the objection that the complaint was barred by limitation. The opposite party contended that no plots for 150 sq. yards were allotted as the matter was under investigation by the Hon''ble Supreme Court. The opposite party, however, agreed to refund the amount of Rs. 6,000/- to the complainant, if he makes any request for the refund.

Both the parties led evidence on affidavits and documents which resulted in passing the impugned order by the District Forum.

IN the appeal before us, the learned Counsel for the appellant in grounds of appeal has vehemently contended that the District Forum has erred in granting 12% interest on the amount of Rs. 6,000/- w.e.f. the date of deposit of earnest money. The Forum could not have granted interest for the reason that the complainant/respondent had not applied for the refund of the amount when he was found unsuccessful in draw of losts. As per the statutory rules of 1983, the old applicants were entitled to be given plots kept reserved for old applicants. As a matter of practice, because of these statutory rules, unless a request for refund of amount is made by the concerned applicant. The amount could not be refunded. The respondent had never applied for refund, therefore, the order of the District Forum allowing interest from the date of deposit has legal infirmity. The interest, if at all could be awarded only from the date of application for refund. The appellants were ready to refund the amount from the date, the complainant applied for the refund. Even otherwise the complainant was not entitled to any interest because there was no such condition or stipulation in the scheme/brochure. The complainant as such was barred by limitation as the cause of action, if any, arose in the year 1985-86 when the applicant was unsuccessful in draw of lots. The order was, therefore, without jurisdiction. The complainant appeared in person before us. The complainant stated that he made an application for refund of earnest money on 19.11.1987 and subsequently issued reminders on 26.5.1989 and 21.8.1990 and he had been visiting the office of Improvement Trust for the refund of the said earnest money but of no avail. He referred his affidavit and copies of the application on record. Affidavit of Sh. Dharam Singh dated 26.2.1998 on record pages 13 and 14, paras 15 and 6 speak as under : "5. That during these 15 years period we had been visiting the office of Improvement Trust, Ludhiana for the refund of earnest money said about but of no avail. 6. That once the dealing Clerk had asked the deponent to supply the original receipts of earnest money which I submitted in their office on 19.11.1987. The deponent was asked to visit the office on 23.7.1997 and on 23.7.1997 the deponent was told by the Trust Clerk that the relevant papers have been misplaced somewhere and are not available."

Copies of applications for refund are also available on pages 18, 19 and 21 of the record file.

ON behalf of the Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, affidavit of Sh. L.D. Gupta, Executive Officer, Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana was filed. A copy of the statutory rules of 1983, now referred in appeal have not been placed on record. We have heard the Counsel for the Improvement Trust and Sh. Dharam Singh in person, we do not find any merit in the contention of the learned Counsel for the Improvement Trust that the respondent was not entitled to any interest because there is no such condition or stipulation in the scheme/brochure or invitation to offer. If the Improvement Trust was unable to allot the plot, it was duty bound to refund the amount to the complainant. The appellant Improvement Trust should not have indulged in unduly enrichment by utilizing the amount of such applicants for such a long time without any valid ground. Similar matter has been considered by this Commission in other cases where the amount deposited by the complainant was ordered to be returned with interest at the rate of 12%. Following the ratio of the previous decision in Appeal No. 553 of 1998, Ludhiana Improvement Trust v. Ajaib Kaur. We order the Improvement Trust, Ludhiana to refund Rs. 6,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 19.11.1987 till its payment. There is nothing on record to show that condition was imposed in the notification inviting applications for allotment that "No interest shall be payable on the money of the applicant for the period for which the same would remain lying with the authorities". No cogent justification has been placed on record to satisfy us for such a long delay in refund of earnest money. It is settled law that a statutory authority is expected to perform its duties as expeditiously as possible. In the instant case, the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court was not followed, therefore, the District Forum was justified in granting the interest. For the reasons recorded above the appeal is partly allowed and order of the District Forum is modified to the extent that the interest shall be payable by the opposite party/appellant from 19.11.1987. The order of the District Forum subject to modification to the extent referred to above, is upheld. The appeal is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed.