PUNJAB URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs VIKRAM SINGH

WE have heard Mr. Rajesh Sood, learned Counsel for the appellant in all these bunch of appeals bearing No. 700 to 710 all of 2003 and have perused the order dated 22.8.2003 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I [for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum] in Complaint Case No. 813 of 2002. The facts have been taken from the said complaint.

THE respondent/complainant after going through the advertisement appearing in the newspapers inviting application by the appellant-Punjab Urban Planning Development Authority [for short hereinafter referred to as PUDA] for allotment of residential plots of different sizes in developed Sector Nos. 68 to 71 in SAS Nagar, applied for allotment and deposited a sum of Rs. 2,75,000/- being the 10% of the amount of the plot as earnest money. Out of the amount of Rs. 2,75,000/-, a sum of Rs. 2,47,000/- were advanced by the Banker HDFC charging interest @ 2.5% per annum. THE appellant-PUDA withheld the draw of lots and ultimately withdrew the scheme and sent an advertisement in that regard to the newspapers. THE appellant suo motu did not pay the amount deposited by the respondents/complainants which led to the filing of the Complaint Case Nos. 813 to 821 all of 2002, 102 and 103 both of 2003 seeking refund of the amount after deducting processing fee of Rs. 500/- and claiming interest on the earnest money. The District Forum allowed the complaints and directed the appellant/O.Ps. - PUDA to pay interest @ 9% per annum on the amount refunded from the date of deposit till its actual payment. The date of refund was deemed to be 31.8.2002 as neither the appellant nor the complainant/respondent furnished the actual date of refund. A sum of Rs. 1,000/- was also awarded as token compensation for losses suffered including the costs of complaint.

It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the District Forum committed an error in allowing interest on the amount as the scheme was withdrawn under Condition No. 5, which has been reproduced in the impugned order and which reads as under: "Condition No. 5: PUDA further reserves the right to change the facilities, specifications, locations, etc. and also the right to withdraw the scheme."

IT may be pointed out that it has not been disputed that the appellant while depositing the earnest money obtained loan from HDFC Bank which was of a sum of Rs. 2,47,000/- and HDFC Bank was charging interest @ 2.5% per annum on that loan amount. The scheme which was withdrawn voluntarily by the appellant obliged the appellant to refund the amounts deposited as earnest money promptly but instead of doing so, the appellant waited for the complainants to move an appropriate application seeking refund of the amount and that too without interest. IT is not a case where the complainants themselves applied for withdrawal from the scheme though a plea has been taken by the appellant that the complainant gave it in writing to the effect as under: "Now I am not interested to continue and, therefore, applying for refund of the same. I also understand that the earnest money would be refunded after deduction of Rs. 500/- by PUDA and the clearance of complete dues of my loan with HDFC."

We fail to understand as to what led the complainants to give it in writing about being not interested to continue and for applying for refund when the scheme itself had been withdrawn under Condition No. 5 by the appellant. The District Forum has rightly held that the complainant was forced to sign the application which had contained the averments which has been extracted above. Since the respondents/complainants had obtained loan from HDFC Bank and were required to pay interest to the Bank, they are entitled to get interest from the appellant and since the appellant did not pay the interest, there was deficiency in service. The District Forum has rightly awarded interest @ 9% per annum and has rightly awarded a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as token compensation for losses suffered including costs of complaint cases. Resultantly, we find no merit in these bunch of appeals, which are dismissed in limine. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charges. Appeals dismissed.