The Haryana Housing Board is not obliged to make monetary refunds to unsuccessful applicants only by way of bank drafts, and unsuccessful applicants are not entitled to interest on the earnest money under the Haryana Housing Board Act, 1971.

Mr. Justice S.S. Sandhawalia, President — Whether the Haryana Housing Board is obliged to make monetary refund to the unsuccessful applicants (for its various housing schemes) only by way of bank drafts? This has been raised as the primal question in this appeal.

2. The facts are not in dispute at all. The appellant applied to the Board for allotment of an MIG-II category house proposed to be built at Palwal and deposited the earnest money of Rs. 4,830/- by a bank draft on the 16th of July, 1991. The draw therefor was held at Chandigarh a little after three months on the 31st of October, 1991. The applicant was duly informed on the 14th of November, 1991 regarding his failure in the draw of lots. The deposited amount was refunded to him by a cheque dated the 2nd of December, 1991 which was however, collected by the Bank and credited to the appellant’s account on the 7th of January, 1992.

3. The complainant-appellant before the District Forum primarily urged for the payment of interest to him on the earnest money which was allegedly used by the respondents for six months. This claim was stoutly resisted by the respondents The District Forum on the appraisal of the material before it came to the conclusion that a welfare organization like the respondent-board had to handle thousands and thousands of applications which have to be duly processed and refund sent to a large number of unsuccessful bidders which is a time-consuming process. Holding that since the refund was allowed and delivered to the appellant within three months, there was no merit in his claim of interest and therefore, dismissed the complaint.

4. Mrs. Daya Chaudhary, the learned Counsel for the appellant herein had put in the fore-front her plea that the respondent board received the deposit only by way of a bank draft and was consequently obliged to make the refund as well in the identical manner. It was contended that the failure to do so is unwarranted and would be a patent deficiency in the services undertaken to be rendered As a matter of practice, it was pointed out that the payments by way of cheques takes inordinately long time in the collection thereof, thus placing the consumer-applicant to unnecessary and unwarranted financial hardship.

5. Though the aforesaid submission has been pressed with great vehemence and forensic ability, we are unable, to find a modicum of merit therein. What first calls for notice as a matter of approach is the fact that within the consumer jurisdiction in the context of the hiring of services, relief can be granted in the case the hiring of services only in the event of a deficiency therein. This is a term of art and has been precisely defined under the Act. It is, therefore, apt to recover thereto at the very out-set: –

“2(1)(g) “deficiency” means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequancy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being, in force or has been under taken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.”

6. Now a plain reading of the above would show that any fault, imperfection of shortcoming in this context has first to be either with regard to some thing which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force. The learned Counsel for the appellant could not even remotely point out to any law or other enforceable provision which requires that the refund must necessarily be done by bank draft alone and not otherwise. Indeed, it is somewhat plain that there is no such legal requirement in strictitude. In the alternative, such a liability could arise in pursuance of a contract as mentioned in the definition. Herein again, no term or condition in the offer or in the contract betwixt the applicant and the board could be pointed out which mandates the refund of the money only through bank drafts. Consequently, there is no such contractual liability laid on th