HUDA vs MOHINDER KAUR

HUSBAND of the complainant/respondent applied for two 10 Marla plots in Sector-27, Panchkula under the oustees quota on 31.8.2001 and deposited Rs. 1,78,610 (Rs.89,330 for each plot) towards 10% earnest money. The draw of lots was held in February 2002 in which the husband of the respondent was not successful and no plot was allotted to him. Unfortunately, he died on 25.2.2002. Respondent, being the wife, went to the office of the petitioner for seeking refund of money deposited by her husband but instead of intimating the process for claiming refund, officials of the petitioner postponed the making of the payment on one pretext or the other by giving false assurances that her name will be included in next draw of lots but nothing was done. She submitted an application on 20.3.2007 seeking refund of the amount. Thereafter, several reminders were sent but to no avail. She filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 on 3.4.2008 asking therein reasons for non-refund of Rs. 1,78,660 but no information was provided to her. Faced with this situation, respondent sent another reminder on 1.7.2008 and ultimately the petitioner issued a cheque in the sum of Rs. 1,78,660 on 17.7.2008 in favour of the respondent, which was received by her on 22.7.2008 but no interest was paid. Aggrieved by this, the respondent filed the complaint before the District Forum claiming interest for the delayed payment.

DISTRICT Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the deposited amount of Rs. 1,78,660 till the date of payment. The District Forum further directed that the amount be paid within one month failing which the awarded amount would carry further interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

AGGRIEVED by this, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, which has been dismissed by the impugned order.

WE agree with the view taken by the Fora below. Since the husband of the respondent was unsuccessful in the draw of lots, it was the duty of the petitioner to offer the payment to the respondent. It has not been brought on record as to when the petitioner came to know about the death of the husband of the respondent. Respondent had approached the petitioner many times but the making of the payment was being deferred on the assurance that she would be included in the next draw of lots, which was never done. Ultimately, the amount deposited was refunded on 22.7.2008 but without any interest. Fora below have rightly directed the petitioner to pay interest on the deposited amount as the money was kept and utilized by the petitioner to the detriment of the respondent. It is a clear case of deficiency in service. Dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.