Vijaya Homes vs Subir Mandal

THE Respondent/Complainant had booked a flat on 24.06.2003 with the Petitioner/Opposite party in their project named ?Vijaya Green Earth?. In addition to the booking amount of Rs.10,000/-, the first instalment of Rs.1,09,262/- was also paid to the Revision Petitioner. No allotment was made and the money was returned after a gap of almost two years on 04.03.2005.

THE District Forum rejected the plea of the OP that under Clause 13 of the General Terms and Conditions of the booking agreed between the parties, no interest was payable. THE District Forum awarded interest at 12% per annum with compensation of Rs.5,000/- and costs Rs.2,000/-. The appeal of the present Petitioner was rejected by the State Commission and hence, the present Revision Petition before this Commission. I have heard the counsel for the Revision Petitioner, who argued that the Respondent/Complainant had signed the letter of allotment on 24.06.2003, after going through all relevant papers and satisfying herself including status of land and building plan and agreed to abide by the terms of the agreement. This argument fails in the background of the fact of this case that the return of the deposit by the Revision Petitioner was itself on the ground of their failure to get the registration of the land required for the project. The fora below have taken note of the fact that refund was not at the instance of the Respondent/Complainant, but due to circumstances for which the Petitioner/Opposite party was himself responsible. In support of his claim of non-liability of interest the counsel cited the decision of Hon?ble Supreme Court in Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Smt. Nalini Aggarwal etc., JT 1997 (5) S.C. 179. The facts of the case are that the allotment of houses was made to the applicants, as per draw of lots. The question of refund arose only in the context of applicants, who remained unsuccessful in the draw of lots and therefore, their deposit of earnest money was required to be refunded to them. The Court came to the conclusion that there was some delay in refund, which was due to administrative exigencies and not due to any mala fides or indifference on the part of the authority. Under these, circumstances, it was held that the Respondent was not entitled to interest for the period during which their deposit is lying with the authority.

The facts of the case before us are very different. The Petitioner had not only accepted the booking amount of Rs.10,000/-, but also gone ahead to receive the first instalment as per the payment schedule, which amounted to confirming the allotment of flat to the Complainant. This situation is very different from one where the applicant knows at the outset itself that in the event of his not succeeding in the draw of lots, he will have no further rights other than refund of the earnest deposit. Therefore, the Revision Petitioner cannot draw any support from the decision citied by him.

THE Revision Petition is, therefore, dismissed at the stage of admission itself and the order of the fora below confirmed.