PUNJAB URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs Anil kumar

THE appellant-Punjab Urban Development Authority (for short hereinafter referred to as PUDA) feels aggrieved by the order dated 5.11.2003 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) in Complaint Case No 865 of 2002 vide which the District Forum allowed the refund of a sum of Rs. 40,000/- deposited by the predecessor-in-title of the complainant namely late Shri Vakil Chand with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of deposit and a further sum of Rs. 63,000/-, has filed this appeal.

THE learned Counsel for the appellant felt aggrieved particularly from the date, the interest has been awarded on the aforesaid amount directed to be refunded, which in the instant case is the date of deposit of the respective amounts. Mr. C.M. Makkar, Advocate appearing for the appellant-PUDA contended that the District Forum should have awarded interest from the date the respondent/complainant produced the succession certificate on the death of his predecessor-in-title late Shri Vakil Chand. While submitting the arguments on merit, Mr. C.M. Makkar, Advocate had submitted that the appellant was justified in demanding from the respondent/complainant an affidavit by way of an undertaking that he will comply with the terms and conditions of the allotment and the relevant rules governing the same and since such an undertaking was not filed and instead a legal notice was served, the allotment which was made in favour of his predecessor-in-title late Shri Vakil Chand was not transferred in favour of the complainant. We, however, find that this submission has no merit inasmuch as once the succession certificate was filed by the respondent/complainant before the appellant -PUDA, the appellant/complainant stepped into the shoes of his predecessor-in-title late Shri Vakil Chand who had in his own right filed an undertaking to comply with the terms and conditions of allotment and the relevant rules governing the same and that undertaking would enure for the benefit of PUDA insofar as the respondent/complainant is concerned. It was not a case of fresh allotment to be made in favour of the respondent/complainant.

Since the transfer of the allotment was not made in favour of the respondent/complainant and the amount also was not refunded to him, there was a clear case of deficiency in service on the part of the appellant PUDA and the District Forum rightly allowed the refund of the amount and awarded interest @ 12% per annum. However, we find that the date of commencement of the interest should not have been from the date of respective deposit because at that time, the interest of the respondent/complainant had not come into being and he became entitled for the transfer of the allotment only when he filed the succession certificate of the competent Court and when the allotment had not been transferred in his favour.

RESULTANTLY, the appeal is allowed partly. The impugned order of the District Forum - II, U.T., Chandigarh is modified to the extent that the rate of interest of 12% per annum on the respective deposits mentioned above shall commence from the date when the respondent/complainant produced the succession certificate of the competent Court before the appellant - PUDA i.e., from 1.10.2001. Let compliance of this order be made by the appellant - PUDA within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. Appeal partly allowed.