National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Punjab Urgan Planning And Development ... vs Mrs Gurvinder Kaur W/O Manjit Singh on 5 August, 2010
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI Revision Petition No. 2095 of 2006 (from the order dated .09.03.2006 in Appeal No. 1421 of 2005 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh ) Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (PUDA) Through its Estate Officer SCO 41 Opposite Tehsil Complex Jalandhar City, Punjab ........ Petitioner Vs. Mrs Gurvinder Kaur Wife of Manjit Singh Manjit Singh Son of Buta Singh Both resident of 430 Model Town Kapurthala, Punjab ..... Respondents BEFORE: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN PRESIDENT HONBLE MRS VINEETA RAI MEMBER For the Petitioner Mrs C K Sucharita, Advocate For the Respondents Mr Vikas Chopra, Advocate Pronounced on 5th August, 2010 ORDER
PER VINEETA RAI, MEMBER Petitioner who was the Opposite Party before the District Forum Kapurthala has filed this Revision Petition under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order of the State Commission, Chandigarh.
Brief facts of the case are that in 1999, Petitioner Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (in short PUDA) had floated a Scheme for allotment of residential plots in urban estate, Kapurthala. One Baldev Singh Bains was amongst those declared successful for allotment of plot in the draw of lots. Vide letter dated 11.01.2001 he was informed about the allotment of plot No. 46, measuring 300 square yards.
Shri Baldev Singh Bains deposited the first four installments for the plot, which included installment amount as well as interest thereon besides earnest money of Rs.27,750/- and Rs.1,11,000/- i.e. 20% of the price of the plot. In November 2003, Shri Bains moved an application for permission to transfer the plot in favour of Smt Gurvinder Kaur and Shri Manjit Singh (Respondents in this case) after they had paid Rs.5,85,172/- to him which included the installment amounts as well as interest and other charges paid by Shri Bains to PUDA. On 22.12.2003, the said plot was re-allotted in favour of the Respondents. Thereafter the Respondents deposited two more installments with interest and possession of the plot was finally given to them by the Petitioner in April 2004. An Agreement to this effect was also signed between the two parties.
On 31.03.2005 Petitioner communicated a policy decision that interest on installments which had fallen due till June 2002 will not be charged from the 717 allottees as development works had not been completed till that date. It therefore, took a decision to refund the interest paid by the allottees prior to June 2002. Petitioner however, did not refund the interest amount to the Respondents for the period prior to re-allotment of plots to them on the grounds that a subsequent allottee cannot ask for refund on the interest paid by the original allottee, because, the original allottee had not authorized them i.e. transferee to recover interest from PUDA. They further opined that the original allottee can get the interest on refund from PUDA in accordance with law.
Aggrieved by the above decision, Respondents filed a complaint under Section 12 of the CP Act before the District Forum on the grounds of deficiency of service, on the part of the Petitioner for inter-alia to not providing the complete basic civic amenities as promised, as well as declining to refund the interest amount on the installments prior to the period of allotments. The Respondents also prayed for damages of Rs.1.00 lakh and an amount of Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation. The District Forum vide order dated 29.09.2005 dismissed the complaint with cost of Rs.250/-.
Aggrieved by this order, Respondent filed an appeal before the State Commission, Chandigarh which allowed the appeal vide order dated 09.03.2006, the relevant portion of the order reads as follows :
Once PUDA agreed to transfer the plot in the name of complainants which earlier stood in the name of Baldev Singh Bains all rights which vested in the original allottee against PUDA would stand transferred to the transferees. It is not disputed before us that while allowing the transfer PUDA had taken an undertaking from the complainants that in case any amount is found due against the plot sought to be transferred, the complainants as transferees would be liable to pay even if it is found that the amount was due prior to the transfer of the plot in the name of the complainants, PUDA cannot take a stand that heads I win tails you lose. If PUDA has the right to claim any amount which is due against the plot even prior to the date of transfer there may be some amount which may be found due from the PUDA to the original allottee. The right to claim that would automatically stand transferred to the transferee after the transfer is allowed by the PUDA. The transferee steps into the shoes of the original allottee. There does not have to be anything in writing in that regard between the transferor and the transferee. In case PUDA pays the amount which may be due to the original allottee. It will absolve itself and the original allottee cannot claim that amount from the PUDA. If at all he may recover the same from the transferee. Consequently, we hold that the District Forum was not correct in its approach when it held that the transferee has no right to claim the refund of the amount of interest on the installments paid prior to
12.06.2002 by Shri Baldev Singh Bains.
The State Commission while setting aside the order of the District Forum directed PUDA to refund the amount with interest to the complainant which had been paid by the original allottee in interest prior to 12.06.2002. The amount so calculated would also carry interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date when complainants asked for the refund of the amount of interest till payment.
We have heard the learned Counsel for the Parties on 29th July 2010.
Briefly, the learned Counsel for the Respondent reiterated the submissions that at the time of transfer of the plot, Respondents had paid the original allottee an amount of Rs.5,85,172/- as full and final settlement which also included the interest on the amount paid to PUDA by the original allottee and, therefore, the Respondents were fully justified in claiming the refund of that interest amount.
Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that while the State Commission had erred in holding that the Respondents who are the transferee allottees and not the original allottees of the plot in question are entitled to refund of interest on installments paid by the original allottee, they are now inclined to settle the matter by paying the Respondents the due amount. However, imposition of 10% interest on interest sought to be refunded by the State Commission is harsh, particularly, since the Petitioner, in consonance with the letter and spirit of the Scheme, incurred on itself a monetary liability to the tune of several crores, in the interest of their customers by refunding the amount of interest prior to 2002. They should therefore not be unduly penalized for this action.
We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Counsels as well as the evidence on record. It is a matter of record that the Respondents (transferee allottees) had paid to the original allottee Shri Baldev Singh Bains the entire amount with interest that he had paid to Petitioner. Under these circumstances, it is only fair and equitable that this amount should be refunded by the Petitioner to the Respondents. We, therefore, agree with the order of the State Commission so far as refund of interest amount to the Respondents is concerned.
However, in view of the fact that PUDA took a suo-motu decision to refund the interest amount paid by the allottees prior to 2002 as a gesture of fairness and good-will to all its allottees and in view of the Petitioners inclination, as per his Counsels submission, now to pay this amount to the Respondents, we feel that there is no need to penalize Petitioner by imposing 10% interest on the interest amount to be refunded to the Respondents. We therefore do not agree with this part of the order of the State Commission.
With this modification we uphold the order of the State Commission. Ordered accordingly, with no order as to cost.
Sd/-
.
[ Ashok Bhan., J ] President Sd/-
..
[ Vineeta Rai ] Member Satish