Present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as amended upto date has been filed by complainant Gurbachan Singh against opposite party i.e. Improvement Trust Phagwara through its Chairman seeking direction against the opposite party for allotment of plot In the area of Hargobind Nagar Phagwara or in alternative to pay a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- as compensation alongwith interest on account of deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.<br /> 2. In nutshell the facts of the complaint are that in the year 1976, opposite party i.e. Improvement Trust launched a scheme for allotment of plot in Hargobind Nagar, Phagwara on first come first serve basis. He applied for the same by depositing requisite amount of Rs.2000/- on 1.12.1976 vide receipt No.65. It is however alleged that opposite party wrongly and illegally allotted the plot to some other person despite his several requests to which he is entitled. Even no intimation was ever given to him for allotment of the plot. He was, however, asked by the opposite party in the year 1987 to deposit sum of Rs.2000/- vide draft dated 26/9/87 for allotment of the plot and the same was deposited. His name was never included in the list meant for allotment of the plot or draw of the plots with the ulterior motive. On the other hand opposite party vide letter dated 27/12/2005 returned the amount of Rs.4000/- to him which was received by him under protest in the first week of January 2006. It is further alleged that there is huge appreciation in the prices of the plots in the area of Hargobind Nagar where the complainant was eligible for allotment of the plot . There is appreciation of more than Rs.10 lacs on the plot for which he is entitled on account of deficiency in servic e on the part of opposite party. Hence this complaint. <br /> 3. Opposite party appeared and controverted the claim of the complainant. Certain preliminary objections have been raised that complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer as defined in Section 2 (1)(b)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act and the present complaint is hopelessly time barred. He has got no locus standi or cause of action to file the present complaint. On merits this fact is admitted that complainant deposited Rs.2000/- with the Improvement Trust Phagwara as prescribed fee alongwith the application for registration of intending purchasers of plots/houses to be allotted by the Improvement Trust. In the year 1987, the Trust had floated scheme No.1 in the area of Hargobind Nagar Phagwara. He was required to deposit Rs.4000/- to be eligible to participate in draw of plots for the allotment of plot measuring 200 sq. yards. He deposited a sum of Rs.2000/- on 29/9/87 as he had already deposited Rs.2000/- and moved written application to the Trust dated 21/4/88 requesting the Chairman to enter his name in allotment by lottery quota draw. The name of the complainant was entered in the draw which was to be held on 6.5.1988 for the purpose of allotment by the opposite party. but the complainant remained unsuccessful and the Improvement Trust had sent the cheque for a sum of Rs.4000/- to the complainant. He started agitating that he had not received the refund of Rs.4000/-, so a fresh cheque of the said amount was sent to him on 25/10/2005. It is denied that said cheque was received by the complainant under protest. Therefore, there is no question of any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party so as to entitle the complainant to allotment of plot or in alternative any monetary compensation.<br /> 4. In support of his version complainant produced into evidence affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to C4.<br /> 5. On the other hand opposite parties produced in evidence <br /> affidavit Ex.R1 and documents Ex.R2 to R26.<br /> 6. We have heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused ocular as well as documentary evidence on the record. Counsel for complainant has vehemently urged before us that opposite party i.e. Improvement Trust is guilty of woeful deficiency in service and gross failure for the allotment of the plot to him under the floated Scheme No.1 in the area Hargobind Nagar Phagwara on first come first serve basis despite his initial deposit of amount of Rs.2000/- in January 1976 and later on another deposit of amount of Rs.2000/- ( total Rs.4000/-) on 26/9/1987. No intimation about draw of plots was intimated nor his name was included in the list of candidates for the allotment of the plots despite the fact that his money was illegally retained by the opposite party for more than about twenty years. On the other hand counsel for the opposite party Trust has counterargued that there is no deficiency in serice on the part of opposite party i.e. Improvement Trust Phagwara because in the year 1976, applications alongwith prescribed fee of Rs.2000/- from the intending purchasers of the plots for registration were invited. In the year 1987, Trust floated Scheme No.1 in the area Hargobind Nagar Phagwara for draw of plots and the complainant being one of the applicant had also deposited additional amount of Rs.2000/- on 29/9/87 to be eligible for the draw of plots on his own application dated 21.4.1988 for entering his name in the allotment by way of lottery quota draw but he remained unsuccessful and as such cheque for a sum of Rs.4000/- was returned to the complainant on 25/10/05.<br /> 7. We have considered rival contentions of counsel for the parties. We find merit in the contentions of learned counsel for the complainant partly to the extent of his entitlement of the interest amount. From the analysis of the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced thereon in support of their respective pleas, these broad facts are not disputed that complainant deposited the initial amount of Rs.2000/- in December 1976 vide receipt Ex.C3 dated 1.12.1976 for registration as intending purchaser of the plot with application Ex.R8 and affidavit Ex.R9. However Improvement Trust Phagwara floated scheme No.1 in the area Guru Hargobind Nagar for allotment in the draw of plots measuring 200 sq. yds. in the year 1987. Complainant also filed an application Ex.R14 dated 21.4.1988 alongwith affidavits Ex.R11 and R12 for entering his name for allotment in lottery quota draw on deposit of additional amount of Rs.2000/- vide Ex.C4 dated 29/9/87 in pursuance of the advertisement Ex.R13 and terms and conditions referred to therein and also Utilization of Lands and Allotment of Plots Rules 1983 and Land Disposal Rules 1976 as amended from time to time., the name of the complainant was also entered in the list of candidates at Serial No.65 Ex.R6 but he was not successful in the draw of plots of 200 sq.yds. as per list of successful candidates Ex.R2 dated 6.5.1988. The manner of allotment to the old applicants and also to the fresh applicants in pursuance of the notice published in the newspaper for allotment of the plots by draw has also been laid down the rule 11 of Punjab Town Improvement ( Utilization of land and allotment of plots) Rules 1983 which require separate deraw to be held in respect of applications pending with the Trust for more than five years ending with the commencement of these rules and in respect of fresh applications received in lieu of such pending applications as per rule 12. The evidence of the opposite party when analysed in its proper perspective, clearly establishes deficiency in service on the ground of laches and palpable delay for the refund of amount of Rs.4000/- to the unsuccessful complainant within reasonable time of draw of plots in May 1988. Even if complainant may not be held legally entitled to the allotment of the plot, as he acquiesced to the terms and conditions referred to in the advertisement on deposit of additional amount of Rs. 2000/- for his participation in the draw of plots by lottery in the year 1988. There was not any condition either in the rules or in the prescribed application for awarding interest on the initial deposit of Rs.2000/- by the applicant for registration as intending purchaser in the scheme to be floated by the opposite party. Therefore, complainant cannot claim interest amount on the initial deposit of Rs.2000/- in the year 1976 for registration as intending purchaser but he is certainly entitled to the interest @ 12% p.a. on the amount of Rs.4000/- from first August 1988 till Oct. 2005 on the ground of palpable delay because there was not even an iota of justification on the part of opposite party to withheld amount of Rs.4000/- of the complainant illegally despite his protest letter as clearly reflected in Ex.R20 dated 16/1/2006 and Ex.R21 and R22 letter of Improvement Trust. Complainant is also entitled to compensation to the extent of Rs.5000/- on account of deficiency in service besides Rs.500/- as cost of litigation. The above directions be complied with by the opposite party within a period of one month from the receipt of copy of this order.<br /> Let certified copies of judment rendered be supplied to the parties without any unnecessary delay and thereafter file be consigned to record ro9om.<br /> <br /> Announced ( Surinder Mittal ) ( A.K. Sharma )<br /> 14.2.2008 Member President/