PUNJAB SMALL INDUSTRIES AND EXPORT CORPORATION LIMITED vs Pawan Kumar

IN this appeal filed against judgment and order dated 19.2.2002 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh [for short hereinafter referrd to as the District Forum] in Complaint Case No. 252 of 2003, the sole contention raised by Mr. J.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate, learned Counsel for the appellant is that the appellant has already paid interst on the earnest money of Rs. 35,000/- @ 7% per annum to the complainant/respondent Shri Pawan Kumar. He has contended that the appellant is not liable to pay the difference of interest between 7% and 11.5% on the earnest money as directed by the District Forum in the impugned order. Apart from it, it has been contended that the District Forum has wrongly imposed costs of Rs. 1,100/- on the appellants.

THE respondent/complainant applied for allotment of an industrial plot in Focal Point, Phase VIII-B, Mohali, District Ropar and deposited earnest money of a sum of Rs. 35,000/- vide draft No. 149306 dated 30.1.1999. THE draw of lot were to be held within three months from the last date of the application, which was 31.1.1999 as per Condition No. 13 of the brochure. In the instant case, the draw of lots for allotment of industrial plot were to be held up to 30.4.1999. THE draw of lots were held as late as June 2001 and in the draw of lots, the respondent/complainant was unsuccessful. THE aforesaid Condition No. 13 further mentioned that the unsuccessful applicant was entitled to refund with interest at the fixed deposit rate in the scheduled Bank as applicable on 30.4.1999. THE amount of earnest money was refunded on 17.2.2003 i.e., after four years of the date of deposit of the earnest money. Apart from it, the appellant was deficient in rendering service as it contravened the condition of the brochure inasmuch as the draw of lots were not held within the prescribed time of three months w.e.f. 31.1.1999 i.e., on or before 30.4.1999. The earnest money remained in deposit with the appellant for the period from the date of deposit upto 17.12.2003 and the complainant stood deprived of the use of his money though he was unsuccessful in the draw of lots, which were held belatedly in June 2001. The complainant placed on record certificate from the Oriental Bank of Commerce, which is a scheduled Bank showing that the rate of interest payable as on 1.10.1998 was 11.5%. The condition of the brochure referred to the rate of interest as on 30.4.1999 and this rate of interest, which was taken into consideration by the District Forum as on 1.10.1998 was 11.5%. The appellant failed to lead any evidence to show that the rate of interest payable on the aforesaid date of 30.4.1999 was @ 7%.

The District Forum thus awarded interest on the amount of Rs. 35,000/- @ 11.5% w.e.f. 31.1.1999 upto 17.2.2003 after adjusting the amount of interest of Rs. 8,680/- already paid. We find no infirmity in the impugned order inasmuch as the appellant was deficient in rendering service and the appellant detained the amount of the earnest money for non-justifiable reasons for the period from 1.2.1999 upto 17.2.2003 inasmuch as the draw of lots were not even held within three months from the date of deposit i.e., on or before 30.4.1999. Since the complainant had to approach the District Forum for redressal of his grievance, the District Forum was justified in awarding costs of litigation, which we find to be just and proper.

CONSEQUENTLY, the appeal lacks merit and is dismissed. However, the costs of appeal shall be borne by the parties themselves. The directions contained in the impugned order be implemented within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. Appeal dismissed.