ORDER
J.K. Mehra J. (Presiding Member)
1. This Revision Petition is against the order passed by the Madhya Pradesh State Commission dated 3.2.1997 dismissing the appeal of a petitioner. The District Forum, Indore vide its order dated 20.11.96 had directed refund of the amount of Rs. 10,000/- deposited with the Indore Development Authority with interest @ 12% w.e.f. 17.6.94 which is the date of filing of the complaint plus costs of Rs. 200/-.
2. It was not in dispute before us that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was deposited by the Respondent with the petitioner along with his application for allotment of a plot, as advance deposit (“Dharohar Rashi”).
3. On 12th July, 1993, in a draw which was held, the Respondent was successful and was allotted plot No. DB-44 and he was required to pay Rs. 12,781/- to make up the first instalment. This amount was to be paid by 20.8.1993. The Respondent’s case was that on 2.8.1993, he had to gone to Neemuch to attend the last rites of his maternal grandmother and there he fell ill and remained admitted in Nursing Home from 12.8.1993 to 29.9.1993. On recovering and return to Indore, he contacted the Petitioner for depositing the balance amount with penalty, if any, but was told that the allotment of his plot had been cancelled and the amount of rs. 10,000/- initially deposited by him had been forfeited.
4. The Complainant/Respondent thereafter went before the District Forum to lodge a complaint alleging deficiency in service. According to the petitioner at the Bar reliance was placed at Clause 20 which reads as under:-
“In case of such applicant who do not accept the offer of allotment of the property in pursuance of their application, the deposit money will stand forfeited.”
5. Counsel has tried to contend that initial deposit was earnest money whereas no such expression has been used against this initial deposit. Furthermore, the question of forfeiture will arise only if the plot is offered and the said offer is not accepted. In a case of present nature period of 30 days is only indicated. Assuming that after the allotment is cancelled, all the plots have been given away then also in all fairness, the authorised should have refunded the advance amount taken if this have not incurred any loss in respect of the said plot. At the time of accepting the deposit, the amount was never accepted as earnest money against any specified property. The authority could not recover any amount contrary to the provisions of Section 73 of the Contract Act. In the present case, no opportunity was given to the party to accept or refuse the allotment even when he pointed out his inability to respond was on account of his illness. Even on becoming aware of the facts, no consideration was shown or given to him. This money was deposited as advance and not as earnest money in terms of the provisions of Transfer of Property Act. Each case has to be considered on its own peculiar facts. After weighing all the pros and cons, District Forum was justification and not in error to order refund of amount with interest @ 12% from the date of complaint i.e. 17.6.1994 till the date of payment. The appeal was also correctly dismissed by the State Commission. We do not find any illegality, infirmity or material irregularity in the two orders and there is no ground for us to interfere with those under Clause (b) of Section 21 of CPA. This Revision Petition is consequently dismissed.