U.P. Awas Vikas Parishad & Anr vs Murari Lal Bansal

V.K.Jain, Presiding Member

The complainant/respondent got himself registered for allotment of a house with the petitioner on 27.03.1986 by depositing a sum of Rs.5,000/- as registration money. A house was allotted to the complainant on 31.08.1992 for a price of Rs.1,36,735/-. As per the allotment letter issued to the complainant on the above referred date, the balance amount which at that time was Rs.1,29,080/-, after giving the benefit of the registration money and interest which has accrued on that registration money, could be paid either in lump sum or in installments. Interest was payable in case the balance payment was to be made in installments. As per the terms and conditions of allotment, if the allottee requested cancellation of the allotment within one month of the allotment, 20% of the registration money was to be deducted and the allotment was to be cancelled. If however, neither the payment in terms of the allotment letter was made nor the allottee made any request for cancellation of the allotment, within one month of the allotment letter, a registered notice was required to be given to him within next 15 days and if the payment was not deposited within next 15 days, the petitioner could deduct 20% of the registration money alongwith interest on the balance sale price at the rate of 16% per annum subject to deduction of maximum interest of two months. The property in that case could be allotted to some other person after cancelling the allotment.

The case of the petitioner is that since the complainant failed to make payment in terms of the allotment letter dated 31.08.1992, the allotment was cancelled on 28.03.1993. Thereafter, the allotment was restored subject to the condition that the payment in future shall be regularly made. This is also the case of the petitioner that even after restoration of the allotment, the complainant did not make payment despite registered letters sent to him on 06.09.1995, 08.09.1997 and 11.09.1998. The allotment was therefore, cancelled vide order dated 07.11.2019 and since the amount which could be forefeited by the petitioner was more than the amount which the complainant had deposited, no amount was refundable to him.

Being aggrieved, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a Consumer Complaint. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner, primarily on the ground that the complainant having failed to make payment, deduction in terms of the order dated 07.11.1998 was justified and no amount was refundable to him.

The District Forum having allowed the Consumer Complaint on 24.01.2011, the petitioners approached the concerned State Commission by way of appeal no. 666 of 2011. Vide impugned order dated 06.09.2013, the State Commission directed as under:

The appeal is allowed as aforesaid. The opposite parties are directed that by deducting Rs.4646/- from Rs.10691/- deposit of the complainant remaining balance be refunded to the complainant. On the remaining balance 09% of annual interest will be calculated from the date when the property has been allotted to someone else by the appellant. It should be ensured to refund the said amount to the complainant within 03 months. Otherwise, on that amount, the interest will be calculated, after date of this order, at the rate of 12% per annum. The other stipulations of the impugned order regarding litigation expenses will remain accordingly.

Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission, the petitioners are before this Commission.

As it would be seen from a perusal of the allotment letter itself that before cancelling the allotment and making deduction in terms of the said allotment letter, the petitioner was required to send registered notice to the allottee requiring him to pay the amount due from him. Though it is alleged that three notices were sent to the complainant one each on 06.09.1995, 08.09.1997 and 11.09.1998 and even the copies of the notice dated 08.09.1997 and 11.09.1998 have been placed on record, there is no proof of the aforesaid letters having actually been dispatched to the complainant by Registered Post. No document evidencing the dispatch or service of the above referred notices to the complainant by Registered Post has been filed. Therefore, it would be difficult to say that the above referred letters dated 06.09.1995, 08.09.1997 and 11.09.1998 had been served upon the complainants. Consequently, the forfeiture in terms of the allotment letter would not be justified. Even otherwise, the petitioner, in case of default on the part of the allottee, could have deducted only 20% of the earnest money and interest for a maximum period of two months. The aggregate of 20% of the registration money and interest for two months on the balance amount payable by the complainant @ 18% per annum would be far far less than the amount which the complainants had deposited with the petitioners.

During the pendency of the appeal before the State Commission, an interim order was passed by the said Commission on 03.05.2011 directing the petitioner to refund to the complainant the money deposited by him after deducting 20% of the said amount. A Revision Petition being RP No.2619 of 2011 was preferred by the petitioners against the interim order of the State Commission dated 03.05.2011. Dismissing the Revision Petitioner in limine, this Commission interalia observed and held as under:

This was in the situation that the respondent/complainant had been allotted a low income group (LIG) flat by the petitioner in a draw of lots held in March 1992 under a housing scheme in Agra. He failed to deposit the balance amount in time as a result of which the allotment was cancelled. The flat was ultimately re-allotted to another person after the complainant failed to deposit the demanded amount even after restoration of the cancelled allotment. It is undisputed that by this time, the respondent had deposited Rs.1,04,691/- with the petitioner towards the cost of the flat. 3. However, for some reason, the petitioner refused to refund the aforesaid amount deposited by the respondent/complainant and claimed that the complainant was liable to pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs.1,32,266/-. It is unclear how the complainant could be held responsible to pay such an amount to the petitioner when the allotment of the flat in question was cancelled finally by the petitioner in November 1998 and the flat was re-allotted to another person. 4. It was, in these circumstances that the State Commission, by its impugned order, ordered refund 80% of the amount deposited by the complainant with the petitioner. 5. Even after carefully hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length, I do not find any ground for interference with this interim order of the State Commission. For, there is nothing on record to demonstrate the policy of refund/forfeiture of the amount deposited by an allottee in a situation like this.

For the reasons stated hereinabove, the order of the State Commission directing refund to the complainant after deduction of Rs.4646/- from the amount paid by him, does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The Revision Petition, being devoid of any merits, is hereby dismissed.