PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs KARNAIL KAUR

THE appellant is Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority, Ludhiana and the challenge is to the order dated June 5, 1997 whereby direction was given to the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. w.e.f. February 28, 1991 to March 4, 1997 to the complainant Karnail Kaur.

KARNAIL Kaur applied for MIG Flat with the Housing Board, Ludhiana on deposit of Rs. 1,000/- on February 28, 1991. Later on she was informed that she was allotted House No. 901 at Dugri Road, Ludhiana. However, she did not received any allotment letter. On enquiry being made from officer of Housing Board, she came to know that the allotment was not being made on account of some litigation pending. On February 23, 1993, the complainant requested for refund of the amount as she was not being delivered possession of the allotted house. She approached the District Forum with the complaint in September, 1996 with the prayer for allotment of House No. 901. In the reply filed by the PUDA, the allegations of the complainant with regard to allotment of Flat No. 901 were completely denied. However, it was stated that the amount of Rs. 1,000/- was sent vide cheque dated March 4, 1997 to the complainant by registered post, thus, the complaint had become infructuous and was liable to be dismissed. It was denied that the complainant had suffered any loss on visiting the office of PUDA. In the rejoinder filed by the complainant, it was reiterated that the Flat aforesaid was allotted as she was successful in the draw of lots and the opposite party was requested to allot the aforesaid flat in accordance with the advertisement issued on February 28, 1991. On evidence of parties, the impugned oder was passed holding that since the amount was already refunded by the opposite party and the only question was with regard to payment of interest by way of compensation as all along the money remained with PUDA. Learned Counsel for the appellant, Mr. Rajesh Sood, has argued that no interest was payable on the amount deposited as there was no clause in the advertisement issued for such payment rather such an advertisement printed that no interest would be paid on the advance deposit made. Copy of the advertisement was produced alongwith appeal. Copy thereof was also produced before the District Forum. This contention as such cannot be accepted. Under the Consumer Protection Act, there is no provision for grant of interest. In the present case when there was a clause in the advertisement that no interest would be payable on the amount deposited initially, interest was not payable. The question for consideration is as to whether compensation is payable to the complainant on the amount deposited which remained with the opposite party for couple of years. The answer has to be in the affirmative. When PUDA advertised for allotment of MIG Flats, within a reasonable time, it was expected to allot such flats. If the number of applicants was less than number of flats available for allotment and if the applicants were more than the number of flats available, to hold a draw of lots and allot such flats but in any case, within reasonable time the amount so deposited by the applicants was required to be returned to the unsuccessful applicants who were not to be allotted flats. Since in the present case, for years together, no action was taken by the PUDA for refunding the amount deposited, it amounts to deficiency in rendering service and negligent act entitling the complainant to compensation. It is in this situation that while determining the compensation under the Consumer Protection Act, we allow interest @ 18% on the money value which is considered just compensation. In the present case also, it is not simply grant of interest on the money deposited but it is compensation by way of interest and the order is fully justified in the present case when PUDA after filing of the complaint woke up to refund the amount to the complainant. Finding no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed with costs of Rs. 200/-. Appeal dismissed with costs.