JINDAL OIL AND GINNING FACTORY Vs. PUNJAB SMALL INDUSTRIES AND EXPORT CORPORATION LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) m/s. Jindal Oil and Ginning Factory, Bathinda i. e. the appellants are a partnership firm and Ashok Kumar Jindal is one of its partners. The respondents had advertised the allotment of industrial plots in the Industrial Growth Centre at Bathinda on lease basis for 99 years. The advertisement was published in the Daily Tribune. The last date for receipt of applications was 28.11.1994. The appellants also deposited the earnest money amounting to Rs.75,000 with the respondents vide bank draft dated 26.11.1994. Although the respondents were to allot the plots within a period of six months from the date of advertisement but nothing happened for a period of three years. .

(2.) It was further pleaded that on 29.9.1997 the appellants requested the respondents to refund the earnest money of Rs.75,000 along with interest. A letter was sent through U. P. C. However, the amount was not refunded by the respondents. Rather they allotted the plot to the appellants vide allotment letter dated 29.7.1998 and demanded an amount of Rs.2,25,000. Show Cause Notice was also issued to the appellants on 28.9.1998 for revoking the allotment and for forfeiting the earnest money already deposited by the appellants. Thereafter the respondents arbitrarily forfeited the amount of earnest money vide letter dated 13.8.1999. The said letter was illegal. Hence the appellants filed the complaint in the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda (in short the 'district Forum') for seeking the refund of Rs.75,000 with interest, compensation and costs.

(3.) The respondents filed the written reply. It was admitted that they had advertised the allotment of industrial plots and the appellants had sent the earnest money of Rs.75,000 to the respondents vide bank draft dated 26.11.1994. The allotment was to be made after observing the due procedure and the delays were bound to occur. The letter dated 29.9.1997 allegedly sent by the appellants was never received by the respondents. Rather the plot was allotted to the appellants vide letter dated 29.7.1998. The appellants failed to deposit 30% down payment which was payable by him and he applied for the refund to save the forfeiture of 10% of the earnest money. The appellants neither refused to accept the plot nor deposited the money inspite of notice being issued to the appellants. Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellants on 28.9.1998. It was not denied that the forfeiture was made vide letter dated 13.8.1999. Hence dismissal of the complaint was prayed.