Manju Garg vs Bc on 1 May, 2012
In the instant case, a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- was deposited, by the complainant, for booking a flat, at the
time of pre-launching of the scheme. By the time, she asked for the refund of
amount, the project had not taken off, and, on the other hand, it had been
abandoned for want of grant of requisite approvals/permissions, by the
competent authorities. Once, at a
particular stage, a project, in which a booking is made, by the complainant, of
a flat, is abandoned, then the Opposite Party/service provider, is required to
refund the amount, with interest. The amount of Rs.2,50,000/- was retained by
the Opposite Party, illegally and improperly, from the date of deposit of the
same, until refund thereof. The
appellant/Opposite Party, earned handsome returns, on the said amount, by
investing the same. Under these circumstances, the Opposite Party, could not be
allowed to be enriched, at the cost of the complainant, by not making the
payment of interest. It was held in Ramesh
Kumar Dua Vs Ghaziabad Development Authority 2008(1) CLT 560(NC),
that when the scheme is cancelled/abandoned, irrespective of the fact, that there
was a genuine reason to cancel the same or not, the complainant shall be
entitled to the refund of the amount,
with interest, from the date of deposit till the time, the same was retained by
it (Opposite Party). The principle of
law, laid down, in the aforesaid case, is fully applicable to the facts of the instant
case. The mere fact, that in the first instance, the refund was accepted by the complainant, did
not mean, that she abandoned her claim of interest, which was earned by the
Opposite Party, on that amount, by investing the same, but she was deprived of
the same. The complainant did not
use the District Forum, as a recovery
agent. As stated above, at the most, after the refund
of amount, the complainant could not turn round and say that she be allotted a
flat. However, she was entitled to refund with interest. The District Forum was,
thus, right in the allowing interest @ 12%
p.a., which could be said to be reasonable,
fair and adequate. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this
regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.