MEERUT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs MANOJ KUMAR JAIN

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 12.4.1999 passed by District Consumer Forum, Meerut in Complaint Case No. 333 of 1998.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant booked a flat in Shatabdi Nagar Housing Scheme in 1991 measuring 160 sq. mts. A sum of Rs. 9,000/- was deposited as reservation amount on 17.6.1991. THEreafter by letter dated 29.7.1993 plot No. 359 in Phase III, Sector VI was allotted to the complainant costing Rs. 1,18,400/-. THEreafter the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 23,952/- on 18.10.1993. THE complainant visited the site and found that the entire land is lying barren and no development work had started. THE opposite party, on being approached assured the complainant that the development work will be done very soon and he will be informed as to when the possession of the flat would be given. Complainant, thereupon, started depositing his instalments and deposited an amount of Rs. 1,45,209/- in eight instalments. Inspite of depositing this amount the complainant has not been delivered possession of the flat and hence he claimed refund of the amount alongwith 24% interest. Opposite parties in the written statement alleged that alongwith refund application the original receipts were not submitted. Hence refund could not be made. An offer was given to the complainant to accept some other flat in some developed sector.

Learned District Forum after considering the facts of the case directed the opposite party to refund the entire deposited amount alongwith 15% interest from the respective date of deposit till the date of payment alongwith Rs. 500/- as cost of the proceedings.

AGGRIEVED against the order of the learned District Forum, the Development Authority has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. It is an admitted fact that no development work has been done and hence possession of flat could not be delivered to the complainant. The only argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the complainant did not surrender the original receipts of the deposit. Hence the amount could not be refunded to him. There is no evidence on record to show that after the application for the refund of the amount was received, the Development Authority had ever demanded the original receipt of deposits from the complainant. It was the duty of the Development Authority to have informed the complainant to surrender the original receipts in order to get the payment. This deficiency on the part of the Development Authority is proved on record and the learned District Forum was perfectly justified in ordering refund of the amount alongwith interest and cost.

THE appeal has no force and is liable to be dismissed. ORDER THE appeal is dismissed and the judgment and order of the learned District Forum are confirmed. Let compliance of the order of the District Forum be made within a period of six weeks. Let copy be made available as per rules to the parties. Appeal dismissed.