Rajasthan Housing Board vs Ram Kishore

AGAINST the order dated 9.3.1992 passed by the District Forum, Udaipur in Complaint Case No. 355/91 the opposite parties before the District Forum have filed this appeal under Sec. 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ("the Act" here in). Facts leading to this appeal are these :-

THE complainant-respondent got himself registered for the allotment of a house in Kuber Yojana. His registration being No. Kuber/ Udaipur 87/72/1140050/117. From 23.2.1985 to 2.12.1988 the complainant deposited Rs. 10,600/- with the opposite parties. THEre is no dispute about this. THE house was not made available to the complainant. He, therefore, got the registration cancelled and demanded the return of the amount deposited by him. THE complainant has alleged that on 8.11.1989 an order was issued for the refund of the amount but until the filing of the complaint, the amount was not returned and thus there was deficiency in service rendered by the opposite parties. He has therefore, filed the complaint before the District Forum, Udaipur on 17.9.1991 praying that Rs. 10,600/- together with the equal amount of interest i.e. Rs. 10,600/- and Rs. 5,000/- as compensation, total Rs. 26,200/- may be awarded to him. The opposite parties submitted the version of the case. It was pleaded that the complainant is not a consumer. It was submitted that after getting the registration cancelled if the complainant wants to get back the amount deposited by him then after making deductions according to the rules, the amount can be returned for which proceedings have been taken in the office of the opposite parties and which are in progress. The version of the case was filed on 2.1.1992. It was denied that the complainant is entitled to any interest. A plea was taken that the complaint was not maintainable under the provisions of the Act. Certain other objections were taken with which we are not concerned at this stage. The complainant submitted the documents showing the deposit of the amounts on various dates. A photo stat copy of the refund order dated 8.11.1989 was also submitted. The opposite parties did not produce any documentary evidence. The complainant submitted his affidavit in support of the complaint on which he was cross-examined by the learned Counsel for the opposite parties. No oral evidence was produced by the opposite parties. The District Forum after considering the material on record directed the opposite parties-appellants to refund the amount of Rs. 10,600/- together with interest @ 18% p.a. Rs. 2,000/- were awarded as compensation. An amount of Rs. 300/- was also awarded as costs. Two months time was allowed to the opposite parties to make the payment by account payee draft. For failure to comply with the orders of the District Forum, it was mentioned that the concerned officers and employees of the opposite parties will render themselves liable for imprisonment and fine under Sec. 27 of the Act. The opposite parties have filed the appeal.

We heard Mr. Het Ram Agarwal, learned Counsel for the appellants, as nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants raised the following contentions before us : (1)that the direction for the return of the amount of Rs. 10,600/- together with interest @ 18% p.a. is illegal, for, the complainant-respondent got the registration cancelled of his own accord and therefore according to the rules deductions are to be made from the registration fee and seed money. (2)that no interest was payable on the amount which was deposited by the complainant. (3)that the District Forum erred in awarding compensation to the complainant and (4)that order for failure to comply with the order of the District Forum, the officers and employees of the opposite parties will render themselves liable for imprisonment and fine could not be made while passing the order under Sec. 14(1) of the Act.

WE propose to examine these points ad seriatam: Re. Contentions Nos. 1 and 2 There is no dispute that the complainant has deposited Rs. 10,600/- from 23.2.1985 to 2.12.1988 with the opposite parties for allotment of a house in Kuber Yojana for which his name was registered. It was also not in dispute that the complainant got his registration cancelled and demanded the amount deposited by him. At this stage we are not concerned with the reason as to why he got the registration cancelled. There is refund order dated 8.11.1990 in which it is written that Rs. 10,600/- may be refunded to the complainant together with interest payable according to the rules or after making deductions. With the refund order documents submitted by the complainant were appended. In that refund order the A.A.O. (Refund) was directed to take action without delay. In the version of the case which was filed by the opposite parties it was stated amongst others in para 6 that according to the rules after deduction, amount is to be returned immediately and that the payment will be made by the office of the opposite parties. In para 7 of the version of the case it was stated that enquiry/investigation with respect to the deposited amount is going on and after its completion and necessary deductions, action for refund of the balance of the amount will be taken. It is clear that by refund order dated 8.11.1990 direction to refund the amount of Rs. 10,600/- with interest or after deduction was passed. The complainant filed the complaint on 17.9.1991 and it was after the filing of the complaint that the refund order was passed on 8.11.91. It is surprising that in the version of the case which was filed on 2.1.1992 the opposite parties have stated that the matter regarding the refund is under process and after necessary deductions remaining amount will be paid. The District Forum decided the complaint on 9.3.1992. In this case allotment of the house was not made to the complainant and before that he applied for the cancellation of the registration, though he got himself registered by depositing the amount in March, 1985. There is Schedule 26 appended to the Procedure from Registration to Allotment. Clause 2 of Schedule 26 deals with payment of interest after cancellation of registration. Relevant part is as follows:-PANGIKARAN KE NERSTIKARAN KI STHITI MAI BYAZ KE BHUGTAN KE SANDARBH MEIN:- PANG1KARAN KE NERSTIKARAN KI STHITI MAI ABANTI KO PANGIKARAN RASHI KE 20 PRATISAT JABT KAR SHESH RASHI VAPISH KARNAKA PRAVDHANHAI. SEDMANIPER BYAZ DANA YA USMEIN SE KATOKI KARNA KA PRAVDHAN SPASHAT NAHI HAI ES SAMBANDH MAI BHAVISYA MAI AWDAK DWARA JAMA KARA YE GAYI SEDMANI KI RASHI PAR NINANUSH AR BYAZ DIYA JAYAGA - (A) AADI PANGIKARAN KA NERSTIKARAN AWDAK NE SWAY AM APNA KARNO SE KARAYA HAI TO USHE SEDMANI PAR 6 PRATISAT SADAHARAN BYAZ HE DEY HOGHA. According to that 20% amount is to be deducted from the registration amount and thereafter it is to be returned. There is no specific provision for paying interest on seed money or to make deductions from it and that on the amount of seed money interest @ 6% would be payable. Subsequently a notification dated 29.3.1989 was issued by the Rajasthan Housing Board. According to which if any house is allotted after 1.11.1988 and the allottees do not want to take the houses then 10% from the registration amount is to be deducted to meet the administrative charges and that no interest will be payable on registration and seed money. The notification is not applicable in the case on hand. As the complainant himself got the registration cancelled he is only entitled to interest @ 6% p.a. on the seed money after deduction from the registration amount as stated above. The opposite parties themselves prepared a refund order on 8.11.89 stating that either interest may be awarded on the amount or deductions may be made. The amount deposited was mentioned in the refund order and that merely makes mention of the amount deposited for registration and monthly instalments. No payment was made until the date of the filing of the complaint. The interest payable on the aforesaid amount would be only upto 8.11.1989 when the refund order was made. The opposite parties had withheld the payment of the amount. They wrongly deprived the complainant from the use of the amount as stated by the District Forum. The refund order was made on 8.11.1989 and nothing was done for making payment. Not only that in the version of the case that was filed on 2.1.92 it was stated that process for making the payment after necessary deductions is in progress. Thus, in our opinion the District Forum was right in awarding 18% interest on the amount that is payable from 8.11.1989 until payment. Contentions Nos. 1 and 2 are decided accordingly. Re. contention No. 3 The opposite parties were ordered to pay compensation to the complainant besides the interest for the deficiency in service on account of the loss suffered by the complainant because of the negligence of the opposite parties. That amount which was awarded by the District Forum is Rs. 2,000/- for mental torture. This amount cannot be characterised as unreasonable, excessive or arbitrary having regard to the circumstances of the case.

RE. contention No. 4 The direction that for failure to comply with the order of the District Forum, the officers and employees of the opposite parties will render themselves liable for imprisonment and fine was not at all justified at the time of passing of the order under Sec. 14(1) of the Act. No other point survives for our consideration. The result of the discussion made hereinabove is : (1)that the complainant is entitled to the refund of the amount after 20% deduction from the registration amount together with interest @ 6% p.a. on seed money upto 8.11.1989. (2)that the complainant is further entitled to interest @ 18% p.a. from 8.11.89 until payment. (3)that compensation amounting to Rs. 2,000/- has rightly been awarded and (4)that no direction for failure or noncompliance of the order could be given under Sec. 27 of the Act at the time of passing of the order under Sec. 14(1) of the Act. The result is that the appeal succeeds in part and the order dated 9.3.1992 passed in Complaint Case No. 355/91 is modified as indicated above. In the circumstances of the case the parties are left to bear their own costs of the appeal. Order modified.