District Consumer Forum, Bokaro.
Consumer Case No. 49 of 2008
Sri Maksudan Ram s/o late Shiobhajan Ram
R/o Qr. No.-224, Sector-III/d, Bokaro Steel City.
Dist.- Bokaro.
Versus
1. The Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board, Dhanbad.
2. Assistant Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board, Balidih, Bokaro Steel City-14, Dist.- Bokaro.
Before-
S.M.Alam, President
Vijay Bahadur Singh, Member
Shabnam Praveen, Member
Date of Judgment-: 25April 2009
Date of case filing-: 02 June 2008.
-: Judgment:-
The complainant has filed this case against the opposite party for allotment of MIG Plot either at Balidih or at Dhanbad besides payment of Rs. 30000/- as compensation and Rs. 5000/- as litigation cost.
2 The complainant case is brief is that he deposited Rs. 50/- on 28.06.1980 as registration fee and Rs. 1500/- on 29.07.1980 as earnest money for allotment of a MIG Plot at Balidih against the scheme of the opposite parties. The opposite parties neither have allotted the MIG Plot nor returned the deposited amount to the complainant so far, in spite of several written representation by the complainant. Hence the complainant has filed this case asking for relief from the opposite parties.
3 Upon issuance of the notices, the opposite parties appeared and submitted their written statement, stating therein that due to financial crises and non availability of road, electricity and water etc., the plot could not be allotted. Besides, there was a paper publication dated 13.12.2005 by the opposite parties that the amount deposited by the applicants would be refunded after filing of affidavit with original paper before the authorities concerned. In this case the complainant has not complied as per the paper publication and hence money could not be returned to him. The money deposited by the complainant did not bear any interest as per the scheme of the opposite parties. Also, the complaint case is time barred. The opposite parties therefore, have prayed this Forum to dismiss the complaint out rightly.
4 Both parties were heard. While going through the entire case records and documents filed on behalf of the parties it is observed that the complainant deposited Rs. 50/- vide receipt No. 30 dated 28.06.1980 and Rs. 1500/- vide receipt No.43 dated 29.07.1980 towards the allotment of MIG Plot under the scheme of the opposite parties. It is found that the opposite parties did not allot any MIG Plot to the complainant so far. The opposite parties have also failed to refund the money deposited by complainant for allotment of MIG plot to him at Balidih. The paper publication dated 13.12.2005 of the opposite parties regarding refund of deposit concerns only those candidates who have failed to get the plot in the lottery system of the opposite parties. The complainant is not cover in this scheme. The complainant cannot be denied interest on his deposit in perpetuity by the opposite parties under the cover of their scheme. In view of the above we conclude to hold that the opposite parties have been negligent and deficient in service towards the complainant and therefore, are liable to pay relief to the complainant.
5 Under the facts and circumstances of the case the opposite parties are directed to refund Rs. 50/-(Rupees fifty) only and Rs. 1500/-(Rupees one thousand five hundred) only along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of their deposit till payment to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order. The opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred) only as compensation to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.
Member (lady) Member President