KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.90/08 JUDGMENT DATED.31.07.08 PRESENT:- JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER The Secretary, Idukki Development Authority, : APPELLANT Idukki Colony.P.O., Vazhathoppu. (By Adv.K.Satheeshkumar & A.K.Asheer) Vs 1.Baby Issac, Chief Promoter, Vathalloor(H), Mariyapuram.P.O., : RESPONDENTS Idukki(Dist) (By Adv.Sudeerkumar) 2. The Chairman, Idukki Development Authority, Painavu, Idukki JUDGMENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER This appeal is preferred against the order dated.28.3.08 of CDRF, Idukki in OP.No.239/06. The lower forum passed the order directing the opposite parties to return the registration fee of Rs.5000/- with 12% interest from 4.10.01 along with Rs.5000/- as compensation and Rs.1500/- as costs to the complainant. 2. The facts of the case are that the complainant is an entrepreneur, who was attracted by an advertisement given by the opposite parties in Malayala Manorama daily stating that the Idukki Development Authority launched a scheme named “Idukki Township Development Program with private participation on B.T.O basis”. The complainant registered his name with the opposite parties on 4.10.01 for starting a hotel having international standards in Idukki. It was stipulated that the opposite parties will give all necessary infrastructural facilities to the entrepreneurs for Idukki Township Development. The opposite parties collected an amount of Rs.5000/- each from all persons who registered with the opposite parties. But no further action was taken to implement the scheme. They did not even conduct any awareness campaign as per notification. The complainant made arrangement for preparing the project work and prepared a detailed project report. After a long lapse of about 7 years no services has been provided by the opposite parties. So alleging deficiency in service the complainant filed a complaint before the forum claiming Rs.25000/- as cost for the preparation of the project, Rs.15000/- as compensation for long delay for the implementation the scheme and Rs.5000/- as registration fee with 18% interest from 4.10.01. 3. The second opposite party filed version and admitted the advertisement given by them and also admitted the registration of the complainant with them. They further contended that as per order from the Government dated 21.3.02 (No.627/2002/LSGD) a selection committee was constituted for the preparation for the projects and without discussing the matter with the Idukki Development Authority and without their direction the complainant prepared a project and arranged funds. The delay occurred in the implementation of the project was only because of technical and legal problems and not deliberate. The projects of Idukki Development Authority are now also under consideration and will be informed to the complainant at the ripe time and in the advertisement itself it was mentioned that the registration fee is non refundable. 4. The evidence consisted of the testimony of PW1; Exts.P1 to P3 and the testimony of DW1; Exts R1 and R2. 5. We heard the counsel for the appellant and first respondent. Both parties reiterated their respective stand taken before the forum. The counsel for the appellant submitted that a non refundable amount of Rs.5000/- was intended for meeting the preliminary expenses in connection with the processing of the plan and that in the advertisement there was no time limit stated for starting the project under the B.O.T scheme and that the delay in starting the development programme is due to delay in getting the sanction from the Government. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the complainant/1st respondent had to spend Rs.25,000/- for preparing the project report and after long lapses of 7 years, the appellant is not taking any steps to implement the scheme and that the Idukki development Authority is now not in existance. Thus, the complainant/first respondent requested for dismissal of the present appeal. 6. The main point to be considered is whether there occurred any deficiency on the part of the appellant. No doubt that the inaction on the part of the opposite party for about 7 years after collecting registration fee would amount to deficiency in service. It is to be noted that even after a lapse of about 7 years nothing was heard about the proposed project. Thus, in effect the opposite parties/appellants, development authority has been unduly enriched by collecting huge amount by way of registration fee from the applicants including the complainant. In fact the complainant is to be awarded compensation for the deficiency of service on the part of the appellant/Development Authority. No doubt that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and as such we find that there is substance in the complaint filed by the complainant. Hence we are pleased to direct the opposite parties to return the fee of Rs.5000/- paid by the complainant with interest from 4.10.01 onwards at 9% per annum instead of 12% which was ordered by the Forum. As the interest is ordered from the date of payment itself, that portion of the order of the Forum regarding payment of compensation is set aside. In the result the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned order dated.28.3.08 passed by the CDRF, Idukki in OP.No.239/06 is modified, thereby the opposite parties are directed to return a sum of Rs.5000/- which was paid by the complainant with 9% interest from 4.10.01. The compensation of Rs.5000/- which was ordered by the forum is set aside and the order regarding the cost of Rs.1500/- is upheld. As far as the present appeal is concerned there shall be no order as to costs. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT R.AV
......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU
......................SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN
......................SRI.M.A.ABDULLA SONA | | 
