VISHAMBHARDAYAL GARG vs Administrator, Nagar Palika Parishad

THESE three appeals are being disposed of by one composite order because the facts and law points involved are almost similar in all the three cases. The three appellants have filed these three Appeals No. 624/1996, 625/1996 and 626/1996 against the orders dated 30.7.1996 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Morena in their Case Nos. 244/1994,243/1994 and 245/ 1994 respectively wherein the District Forum has dismissed the complaint stating that the complicated issues being involved the complainants are directed to approach Civil Court. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the record of the case.

IN each of these three cases the complainants had stated that they had deposited earnest money with the opposite party for allotment of a plot long back but the opposite party has not delivered possession of the plots allotted to them and they requested the District Forum to get the plots delivered by the opposite party and give relief as may be admissible under law. Even if there had been a complaint of corruption and Collector''s order for cancellation of allotment, the fact remains that an agreement was executed between both the parties on 30.7.1994 for allotment of plot. The undisputed facts in each case are that the earnest money was deposited by the complainant with the opposite party for allotment of plot. The possession of plot has not yet been delivered to the complainant nor the complainants have been refunded the earnest money deposited by them. Non-allotment of plot after taking earnest money and keeping the complainants waiting for a number of years is definitely a deficiency in service for which detailed enquiry is not called for. In II (1995) CPJ 43 (NC) the Hon''ble National Commission has held that the process of rendering service commences when applications for allotment of plot are invited and in response to that offer, persons apply for the same with necessary deposits. The Hon''ble National Commission further rejected this argument that no interest was payable on the money of the applicant for the period for which the same remained lying with the Authority. The Hon''ble National Commission maintained the order of the District Forum awarding interest of 18% on the amount deposited and dismissed the petition of the petitioner in that case.

We, therefore, order that either the opposite party shall deliver the plot as agreed upon in the argument dated 30.7.1994 within two months from the date of receipt of this order or in the alternative shall refund within two months the entire amount deposited by the complainants alongwith 18% interest from the date of deposit till date of payment. Appeals allowed.