Commissioner, Puda and Another Vs. Smt. Ramesh Rani - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1113598
CourtUnion Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh
Decided OnJan-27-1999
Case NumberAppeal Case No. 172 of 1998
JudgeJ.B. GARG, PRESIDENT, THE HONOURABLE MR. SADA NAND, MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MRS. P. OJHA, MEMBER
AppellantCommissioner, Puda and Another
RespondentSmt. Ramesh Rani
Excerpt:
consumer protection act, 1986 - sections 15 and 2(1)(g) - comparative citations: 1999 (1) clt 287, 1999 (2) cpj 29j.b. garg, president: 1. smt. ramesh rani instituted a complaint for payment of interest @ 18% p.a. because there was an alleged delay in its refund and the district forum-ii ut, chandigarh, ordered on 10.9.1998 payment of interest @ 18% p.a. together with costs rs. 550/-. aggrieved against it, the present appeal has been preferred. 2. the learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that smt. ramesh rani applied for hig single storey house out of those which were likely to be built in phase ix, sas nagar, mohali. the deposit was made on 3.3.1989. a perusal of the record with the help of learned counsel for the parties shows that draw of lots was held in 1989, but she was not successful. again a draw of lots was held on 20.9.1996 and she was again not successful. her keenness for a built dwelling unit continued throughout as is apparent by her own application annexure c2 dated 19.2.1997. after the unsuccessful draw qua the appellant held on 20.9.1996, which finds a clear mention in para 2 of the reply filed by the estate officer, puda, mohali, it was expected that the sum of rs. 4,000/-. should have been refunded within a period of 3 months i.e. by 20.12.1996. we hold that the undue delay of refund thereafter for the period 21.12.1996 to 14.2.1997, was a kind of deficiency. the impugned order is hereby modified and it is held that the respondent is entitled to interest only in respect of the aforesaid short period @ 18% p.a. with this modification, the appeal stands disposed of. however, there is no order as to costs. announced.
Judgment:

J.B. Garg, President:

1. Smt. Ramesh Rani instituted a complaint for payment of interest @ 18% p.a. because there was an alleged delay in its refund and the District Forum-II UT, Chandigarh, ordered on 10.9.1998 payment of interest @ 18% p.a. together with costs Rs. 550/-. Aggrieved against it, the present appeal has been preferred.

2. The learned Counsel for the appellant has pointed out that Smt. Ramesh Rani applied for HIG single storey house out of those which were likely to be built in Phase IX, SAS Nagar, Mohali. The deposit was made on 3.3.1989. A perusal of the record with the help of learned Counsel for the parties shows that draw of lots was held in 1989, but she was not successful. Again a draw of lots was held on 20.9.1996 and she was again not successful. Her keenness for a built dwelling unit continued throughout as is apparent by her own application Annexure C2 dated 19.2.1997. After the unsuccessful draw qua the appellant held on 20.9.1996, which finds a clear mention in para 2 of the reply filed by the Estate Officer, PUDA, Mohali, it was expected that the sum of Rs. 4,000/-. should have been refunded within a period of 3 months i.e. by 20.12.1996. We hold that the undue delay of refund thereafter for the period 21.12.1996 to 14.2.1997, was a kind of deficiency. The impugned order is hereby modified and it is held that the respondent is entitled to interest only in respect of the aforesaid short period @ 18% p.a. With this modification, the appeal stands disposed of. However, there is no order as to costs.

Announced.