Improvement Trust, Barnala vs Rahul Bansal & Anr.

The revision petition No.828 of 2013 has been filed by the Improvement Trust Barnala against the order dated 30.11.2012 passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh ('the State Commission') in Appeal no. 527 of 2008 and revision petition No. 1378 of 2013 has been filed by Rahul Bansal and Anr., against the same order dated 30.11.2012 passed by the State Commission in Appeal no. 527 of 2008.

The brief facts of the case are that the complainant Rahul Bansal had booked a shop with the opposite party for a total consideration of Rs.30,50,000/- and paid the booking amount of Rs.1,25,000/-. By way of instalments, further, Rs.7,59,500/- was also paid to the opposite party. Complainant alleged that no facilities were developed around the shop and therefore, he did not pay further instalments. Due to non-payment of instalments, the opposite party cancelled the allotment vide letter dated 30.08.2007. Accordingly, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur ('the District Forum'). The complaint was resisted by the opposite party by filing written statement. However, the District Forum allowed the complaint vide its order dated 24.04.2008 as under:

"In this view of the matter, therefore, we partly allow the complaint and direct the OPs to:

To refund to the CCs an amount of Rs.8,84,000/- which was deposited towards the part payment of the price of the shop within 45 days, failing which, OPs shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the above said amount from the date of deposit of the amount, i.e., 23.02.2006 till realisation;

Pay to the CCs a sum of Rs.2,000/- on account of mental tension and harassment; and  Pay to the Cs a sum of Rs.2,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the opposite party preferred an appeal before the State Commission being FA no. 527 of 2008. The State Commission vide its order dated 30.11.2012 has partly allowed the appeal and ordered the Improvement Trust to deduct a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- being the earnest money and to refund the remaining amount of Rs.7,59,000/- along with 7.5% per annum interest.

Dissatisfied by the order of the State Commission, both the parties have filed revision petitions before this Commission.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the complainant states that there is no provision in the allotment letter for deduction of any earnest money, therefore, he is entitled for refund of the total amount without any deduction. The State Commission has wrongly ordered deduction of the booking amount of Rs.1,25,000/-.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite party states that though it is true that there is no provision in the allotment letter for deduction of earnest money, however, the allotment was cancelled as the complainant did not pay the remaining installments and to offset the loss suffered by the opposite party, deduction of earnest money of Rs.1,25,000/- has been ordered by the State Commission. Learned counsel further stated that the complainant at the first instances defaulted by not paying the installments and therefore, even if the money deposited by the complainant has to be refunded, the same should be refunded without any interest.

We have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record. It is an admitted fact by both sides that there is no provision of deduction/ forfeiture of earnest money in the allotment letter, therefore, the order of the State Commission for deducting the amount of Rs.1,25,000/- as earnest money is without any basis.

In these circumstances, we are of the view that the refund of the total amount to the complainant is justified. The District Forum has allowed interest @ 9% per annum on the amount of refund, however, the same has been reduced to 7.5% per annum interest by the State Commission.

The State Commission has given a clear finding that there was no deficiency on the part of the opposite party in respect of the provision of various facilities/ amenities around the shop. In these circumstances, it is true that the complainant had stopped payment of further installments without any proper reason.

Keeping the facts and circumstances of the case in view and also taking into consideration the fact that the opposite party is a public authority, we allow that the total amount of Rs.8,84,000/- be refunded along with 6% per annum interest to the complainant from the date of respective deposits till the actual payment. The order be complied within 45 days of receipt of the order. Accordingly, both the revision petition nos. 828 and 1378 of 2013 stand disposed of.