GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs VINOD KUMAR BANSAL

THIS is a revision petition filed against the order dated 9.7.1993 of the State Commission, Uttar Pradesh at Lucknow in Appeal No. 853 of 1992. The brief facts leading to the present revision petition are that the respondent/complainant had deposited a sum of Rs. 16,010/on 27th October, 1988 in the Lucknow Branch of Vijaya Bank with his application for purchase of a plot in the Govindpuram Plot Scheme of the Revision Petitioner-Ghaziabad Development Authority. The respondent/complainant was not successful in the draw held for the allotment of houses and therefore, he could withdraw his deposit under the rules fra med by the Revision Petitioner GDA.

THE rules provide that the unsuccessful applicants can withdraw the deposit amount through the Vijaya Bank where the amount had been deposited by submitting the depositor's counter foil of the deposit original challan. The respondent/complainant did not approach the Vijaya Bank for withdrawing the amount deposited by way of deposit but filed a complaint before the District Forum, Lucknow being Complaint No. 214 of 1991 which allowed the complaint by its decision dated 23.5.1992. It ordered the refund of the amount deposited with interest at 18% from 27th October, 1988 onwards.

The District Forum held that "the services of the Opposite Party (Revision Petitioner GDA) were hired by depositing the above amount as consideration and refund of money is also a service." Further "the Bank is the Agent of the Opposite Party and when the principal Opposite Party has been made a party, it is not necessary to summon the Agent. Even otherwise the Bank cannot refund the money on the mere production of the challan without the sanction of the Opposite Party/although there is provision under the Rules for the Bank to refund the money. The primary responsibility is that of the Opposite Party". Consequently it allowed the complaint as above. The State Commission of Uttar Pradesh at Lucknow in the appeal filed by the revision petitioner held that the decision rendered by the District Forum was correct.

AT the outset, it may be noted that the deposit made by the respondent/complainant was not in the nature of consideration for the purchase of a plot but only in the nature of earnest money. Since the respondent was not successful in the draw, he was not entitled to receive any plot or any service from the Revision Petitioner-GDA. As per the rules the respondent/complainant had to approach the Bank in which he had deposited the amount alongwith the application for allotment of a plot and if he did not do so and consequently there was a delay in refund of the deposit, the Revision Petitioner-GDA cannot be held responsible.

AT the hearing on 19.9.1994 the respondent/complainant also submitted that the deposit made by him initially was treated as a deposit for a number of other housing schemes of GDA in which he was not successful or which were given up by GDA. In consequence, he suffered loss of interest on his deposit. This is not relevant in this case. Besides the deposit was in the nature of earnest money & not consideration. As no plot was allotted to the Respondent, there could be no deficiency in service. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed and the orders of the State Commission and the District Forum are set aside. No costs. Revision petition allowed.