Punjab Urban Development Authority vs Darshan Singh Sehgal

President - Punjab Urban Development Authority (PUDA) - opposite party is in revision. It is aggrieved by the order dated 2-6-2000 of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissing its appeal and upholding the order of the District Forum on a complaint filed by the respondent. District Forum had directed payment of interest @ 10% per annum on the amount of Rs. 8,000/- deposited by the respondent-complainant as earnest money for allotment of plot to him, from the date of deposit till payment.

Complainant on the basis of advertisement given by PUDA applied for a plot of land measuring 400 sq. yards. That was in April, 1990. Under the terms of the advertisement a successful candidate was to be allotted plot and those who were unsuccessful could ask for refund of their earnest money or could ask that their name be considered in the next draw of lots. It was also given in the advertisement that PUDA would float at least one residential sector every year and all the applicants who had applied upto 1990 would be allotted plots and till they were not offered plots no fresh applications would be entertained. It is also mentioned that the applicant would be entitled to interest @ 10% per annum on the earnest money. On the basis of advertisement complainant deposited Rs. 8,000/- with PUDA. No allotment was made till December, 1997, the date filing of the complaint. Then complainant was informed that the applicants who were not successful, in the draw of lots they would be required to pay the price of the plot @ Rs. 2000/- per sq. yard and unsuccessful candidates were again given option for refund of the earnest money.

Complainant alleged that although he was not successful in the first draw of lots yet he was entitled to be considered for the subsequent draw of lots as the PUDA was under obligation to float at least one scheme every year and that the complaint be allotted plot at the old rate. He, therefore, sought direction for refund of the earnest money and to be included in the future draw of lots. Complainant also claimed damages.

On notice being issued, PUDA took objection that complaint was not entitled to any allotment of plot as he failed to pay the earnest money as per the enhanced price. PUDA also stated that it is ready to refund the amount. District Forum in view of the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court (Civil Writ Petition No. 2468/97) in the case of Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab did not give any direction for inclusion the name of the complainant in future draw of lots. District Forum held that the complainant was entitled to refund of earnest money with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of deposit till payment. A direction was given that the amount be paid within three months of the receipt of the order of the District Forum.

PUDA went in appeal to the State Commission which dismissed the same without any order as to costs. Still aggrieved PUDA has come before us in revision. We were referred to a decision of this Commission in the case of The Estate Officer, PUDA v. Jagpal Singh Darah, Revision Petition No. 672/97, Decided on 5.5.97. On that basis we issued notice. In that case complainant had deposited the earnest money amounting to Rs. 6,000/- for allotment of a plot measuring 300 sq. yards on 24-4-1990. He wanted refund of his earnest money on 24-4-1993. PUDA however, refunded the earnest money with interest @ 10% per annum not from the date of deposit but from 1-2-1992 Reference was made to advertisement where it was stated that no interest would be payable on the earnest money. On a complaint filed by the complainant in that case, District Forum directed that interest be paid from the date of deposit which order on appeal was upheld by the State Commission. This Commission, however, set aside the order of the State Commission and District Forum awarding interest from the date of deposit till 31st January, 1992. We however, find that facts of that case are not the same as in the present case and moreover in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Union of India and another, 2000 (6) SCC 113, the decision of this Commission in Revision Petition No. 672/96 does not hold good. Supreme Court has held that even where there is no provision of payment of interest either expressly or impliedly, interest could be awarded on equitable considerations and Supreme Court also held in that case that award of interest @ 12% would be quite equitable and reasonable. In the present case the deposit of earnest money was kept for seven years, schemes were not floated every year as promised and then price was increased to Rs. 2,000/- per square yard which made the complainant to seek refund of the earnest money. Complainant had been awarded interest @ 10% per annum. He had been made to wait for seven years without there being any allotment of plot and cost of construction escalating. In Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Darsh Kumar, Revision Petition No. 1197/98 in similar circumstances we have held that award of interest @ 18% per annum is quite justifiable. We, therefore, find no ground for us to interfere with the order of the State Commission in exercise of our jurisdiction under clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act. This revision petition is dismissed with cost. Counsel fee Rs. 2,000/-.