PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs SANDEEP BHATIA

OPPOSITE party is the petitioner before us. Complaint by the respondent-complainant alleging deficiency in service was allowed by the District Forum and appeal against that order by the petitioner was dismissed by the State Commission. Respondent deposited a sum of Rs. 3,000/- with the Punjab Housing Development Board on 29.11.1989 and a further sum of Rs. 7,000/- in May, 1990. Thus totalling Rs. 10,000/-. Punjab Housing Board was merged with the Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (PUDA), petitioner herein. Complainant has sought allotment of an HIG plot at Ludhiana. His complaint was that his case was not considered by the petitioner nor his money was refunded. The amount, however, was refunded only in December, 1996 but without interest. His complaint was that since neither he was allotted a plot nor was he paid interest for all the period money was lying with PUDA. There was deficiency in service which led to filing of the complaint by him.

ON notice being issued by the District Forum, it was the case of the petitioner that name of the respondent was included in the draw of lots on 24.5.1991 but he was unsuccessful. It was submitted that respondent did not ask for refund of the money and that money was refunded to the persons who sought its refund. We have not been informed if respondent was ever made aware of the fact that he would get the money refunded on his asking. There is also nothing on the record if the respondent was informed that his name was included in the draw of lots and that he was unsuccessful. This being the stand of the petitioner it was a case certainly of deficiency in service. Complainant did not get any plot and he was deprived of the money all that period. District Forum directed the refund of the money with 15% interest per annum. Cost of Rs. 550/- was also imposed on the petitioner. Interest was allowed w.e.f. 1.7.1991 which is almost 1 months after the draw of lots on 24.5.1991 where complainant was unsuccessful. State Commission in the appeal filed by the petitioner-opposite party has affirmed the finding of the District Forum holding that it was a clear case of deficiency of service on the part of the petitioner. This Commission in somewhat similar circumstances has awarded interest @ 18% per annum. Supreme Court also held that interest could be payable on enquitable grounds as well.

Aggrieved of the order of the State Commission, petitioner has come to this Commission. We do not find any error of jurisdiction otherwise for us to interefere with the order of the State Commission in exercise of our jurisdiction under Clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This revision petition is dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.