State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Puda vs Harmeet Ghuman on 31 March, 2011
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SCO NOS.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.65 of 2005
Date of institution: 13.01.2005
Date of decision : 31.03.2011
1. Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority through its Chief
Administrator, PUDA Bhawan, Sector 62, SAS Nagar (Mohali), Distt.
Ropar.
2. The Estate Officer, Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority,
PUDA Bhawan, Sector 62, SAS Nagar (Mohali), Distt. Ropar.
.....Appellants
Versus
Harmeet Ghuman w/o Sh.Karamjit Singh Ghuman r/o House No.1609, Sector 36-
D, Chandigarh.
.....Respondent
First Appeal against the order dated 20.10.2004
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Ropar .
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President
Mrs.Amarpreet Sharma, Member
Mr.Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.G.S.Arshi, Advocate
For the respondents : Ms.Anju Arora, Advocate
JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT
This order will dispose of two appeals bearing First Appeal No.65 of 2005 (Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority and another v. Harmeet Ghuman) and First Appeal No.66 of 2005 (Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority and another v. Gagandeep Kaur) as the questions of law and facts involved in both these appeals are identical. The facts are taken from First Appeal No.65 of 2005 and the parties would be referred by their status in this appeal.
First Appeal No.65 of 2005 2
2. Jagjit Singh original applicant (in short "the applicant") had submitted an application to the appellants on 17.12.1984 along with the earnest money of Rs.10,000/- for being allotted a residential plot measuring 500 square yards in Urban Estate, Mohali. His application was entered at Serial No.409/Gen. The registration number was later on changed to R-600/Gen.
3. It was further pleaded that in June, 1994, the applicant had opted for allotment of the plot at the revised rate as on 16.6.1994 in new Sectors of Mohali. He also deposited another amount of Rs.50,000/- through bank draft dated 15.6.1994 to complete 10% of the earnest money at the revised price of Rs.1200/- per square yard.
4. It was further pleaded that in the month of May/June, 1994, the Punjab Housing Development Board (which has now been renamed as the appellants) took a policy decision to allow the old applicants whose applications were still pending to transfer their registration number for allotment of plots in the names of other persons by depositing the transfer fee @ Re.1/- per square yard. As per this decision, the applicant applied to the appellants on 15.6.1994 for transfer of his registration number 409(Old)/New 600-gen in the name of the respondent. He also deposited the transfer fee of Rs.500/- and the affidavit in the prescribed proforma. Although the transfer application was complete in all respects but the appellants did not transfer the registration number in favour of the respondent for the reasons best known to the appellants. Rather pick and choose method was adopted by the appellants. In a number of cases, the registration number was transferred in favour of the transferee within a few days and these plots were allotted to them @ Rs.1400/- per square yard vide separate allotment letters.
5. It was further pleaded that without deciding the application filed by the applicant, the appellants had issued the Public Notice in the Daily Tribune dated 24.7.1995 that the draw of lots of the pending applicants would be held on 1.8.1995. It was also stated that the applicants whose applications for transfer were pending would also be considered in the next draw of lots and adequate number of First Appeal No.65 of 2005 3 plots were reserved for them. Inspite of that, registration number 600-Gen was not included in the draw of lots. The respondent had filed Civil Writ Petition No.10924 of 1995 in the Hon'ble High Court Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh for including her name in the draw of lots scheduled for 1.8.1995. On the directions of the Hon'ble High Court vide interim order dated 31.7.1995, the name of the respondent was considered in the draw of lots. The respondent was successful and she was allotted plot No.1094 measuring 500 square yards in Sector 69, Mohali.
6. It was further pleaded that after the draw of lots was held, the appellants had constituted a Committee of Officers to examine the genuineness of the pending applications for transfer of registration number. In some cases, the genuineness of the applications for transfer of registration number was not verified by the appellants and straightaway, the allotment letters were issued to the transferees after holding a draw of lots. The Committee had also issued individual notices as well as public notices through post to the original applicants asking them to appear before the Committee for verification of their pending applications for transfer of registration numbers.
7. It was further pleaded that Jagjit Singh applicant was also asked to appear before the Committee on 26.9.1995 and, thereafter, on 25.10.1995 but the applicant had failed to appear as he had already received the consideration money and had no interest in the application for transfer. However, the applicant had no dispute with the respondent regarding the transfer of his registration number in her favour. The applicant failed to appear before the Committee in spite of opportunities given to him.
8. It was further pleaded that the appellants again issued public notice asking the applicants to appear before the Committee who had failed to appear including Jagjit Singh applicant on 8.1.1996. The respondent was also directed vide letter dated 27.12.1995 to produce the applicant before the Committee on 8.1.1996. The respondent had appeared before the Committee on the said date but the applicant again failed to appear. Again public notices were issued in the Daily First Appeal No.65 of 2005 4 Tribune dated 5.5.1996 and 14.5.1996 asking the applicants (including the applicant in this case) to appear before the Committee on 16/17.5.1996 but the applicant again failed to appear before the Committee. Again the appellants issued the public notices in the Daily Tribune dated 15.6.1996 and 23.06.1996 and also in Ajit Punjabi on 24.6.1996 asking the applicants to appear before the Committee on 25/26.6.1996 but the applicant again failed to appear.
9. It was further pleaded that thereafter, the respondent had filed a representation dated 13.2.1997 before the Additional Chief Administrator of the appellants who was the Head of the Committee but the Committee instead of transferring the registration number in her favour again issued the public notice in the Daily Tribune/Indian Express on 17.4.1997 asking the applicants to appear before the Committee on 23.4.1997. It was specifically mentioned in the public notice that in case, the applicants failed to appear before the Committee, it would be presumed that the applicants had nothing to say regarding the applications for transfer of the registration numbers. The applicants again failed to appear. The respondent was also asked to submit copy of the ration card/passport/driving licence/election card and one photograph duly attested by the Executive Magistrate. She was also asked to file indemnity bond and to produce the original documents relating to the registration.
10. It was further pleaded that the respondent had appeared before the Committee on 23.4.1997. She also produced the necessary documents along with the indemnity bond dated 22.4.1997. The appellants again issued the public notice in the Daily Tribune dated 17.10.2002 asking 4 original applicants including Jagjit Singh to appear before the Committee on 25.10.2002 along with certain documents. It was also mentioned in the notice that if the applicants failed to appear, it would be presumed that they did not wish to offer any clarification regarding the transfer of the registration number and the registration number would be transferred in the name of the transferees including the respondent. Again the applicant failed to appear before the appellants on 25.10.2002. First Appeal No.65 of 2005 5 Ultimately, the registration number 600-Gen was transferred in the name of the respondent by the appellants vide letter dated 25.3.2003 and the allotment letter dated 2.6.2003 was issued in favour of the respondent for plot No.1094 measuring 500 square yards on the basis of draw of lots held on 1.8.1995. The price charged was @ Rs.3744/- per square yard instead of Rs.1400/- per square yard which was prevalent as on 1.8.1995 when the respondent was successful in the draw of lots.
11. It was further pleaded that the appellants had demanded another amount of Rs.93,600/- extra for the plot in question vide letter dated 12.12.2003 on the ground that the said plot was facing the park. Moreover, the rebate was payable @ 10% on the date of draw of lots which was now reduced to 5% only in the year 2003. Hence, the complaint seeking direction against the appellants to charge the plot price from the respondent @ Rs.1400/- per square yard which was applicable as on 1.8.1995 and permitting her rebate @ 10% instead of 5% and also for waiving the extra demand of Rs.93,600/-. Compensation, interest and costs were also prayed.
12. The appellants filed the written reply. The factual position was not denied. It was, however, pleaded that the original applicant had failed to appear before the appellants and before the Committee appointed by the appellants. Even the respondent had failed to produce him before the Committee. After making efforts time and again for procuring the presence of the original applicant to certify the genuineness of the application filed by the original applicant seeking transfer of his registration number in favour of the respondent, it was ultimately transferred in favour of the respondent vide letter dated 25.3.2003 on the condition that the plot earmarked against the registration number 600-Gen would be allotted to the respondent at the rate prevalent at the time of allotment letter. Thereafter, the allotment letter dated 2.6.2003 was issued in favour of the respondent for plot No.1094, Sector 69, Mohali @ Rs.3744/- per square yard.
13. It was further pleaded that the respondent had accepted this allotment. She had never raised any objection to the terms and conditions of the First Appeal No.65 of 2005 6 transfer letter or to the terms and conditions of the allotment letter. Rather she had raised the demand for possession vide letter dated 24.6.2003 through her authorised signatory Kamaljit Singh Ghuman. The possession of plot No.1094, Sector 69, SAS Nagar (Mohali) was delivered to the respondent on 2.7.2003 (Ex.R3) and she had not raised any objection at that time relating to the price of the plot. The respondent had even applied for the issuance of no due certificate for getting executed the conveyance deed in her favour. Even in her application for the issuance of no due certificate, no such objection was raised by the respondent that she had made excess payment as price of the plot.
14. It was further pleaded that after accepting the terms and conditions of the allotment letter and after getting the possession of the plot, the respondent was now objecting to the price of the plot. It was neither deficiency in service on the part of the appellants nor they had committed any unfair trade practice. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
15. The respondent had filed her affidavit Ex.PW1/A. She also proved documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C32. On the other hand, the appellants filed the affidavit of T.K.Goyal, Estate Officer as Ex.R1. The appellants also proved documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R17.
16. The learned District Forum accepted the complaint vide order dated 20.10.2004 with costs of Rs.2000/-. The appellants were directed to charge the price of the plot @ Rs.1400/- per square yard, to increase the rebate to 10% and the demand of Rs.93600/- was set aside. The appellants were also directed to refund this amount with interest @ 18% p.a. and to pay another amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the respondent.
17. Hence, this appeal.
18. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants was that it was the duty of the appellants to transfer the registration number of Jagjit Singh in favour of the respondent after due verification. The appellants took the steps for procuring the presence of the original applicant by sending letters in his name and First Appeal No.65 of 2005 7 by issuing public notices. Even the respondent was asked to produce the original applicant before the Committee appointed by the appellants. Even she had failed to produce him before the Committee. After exhausting the legal course available to the appellants and after the appellants were sure that the application was genuine as the original applicant was not appearing before them inspite of issuance of a number of notices, then the registration number was transferred in favour of the respondent.
19. It was also submitted that in the transfer letter dated 25.3.2003 (Ex.R2), it was specifically mentioned that the plot would be sold to the respondent on the prevalent rate but no objection was raised by her. Thereafter, the allotment letter was issued in favour of the respondent on 2.6.2003 (Ex.R11) and the rate was specified. The respondent through her authorised signatory had deposited the demanded price vide letter dated 24.6.2003 (Ex.R12) and demanded possession. No objection was raised by the respondent at that time also about the plot price demanded from her. The possession was also delivered to the respondent. No objection was raised by the respondent even at that time. She again vide her letter dated 8.9.2003 (Ex.R15) had demanded no due certificate from the appellants. No objection was raised by the respondent in this application also. Hence, it was prayed that once the respondent had accepted the terms and conditions of the allotment letter. She was not entitled to any compensation nor there was any deficiency in service on the part of the appellants. Hence, it was prayed that the appeal be accepted with costs and the impugned judgment dated 20.10.2004 be set aside.
20. On the other hand, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent was that there was no merit in the present appeal and the same be dismissed. Written arguments were also filed.
21. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
22. The admitted facts are that Jagjit Singh was the original applicant. His application was registered at No.409/Gen which was later on changed to R- First Appeal No.65 of 2005 8 600-Gen in June, 1994. Thereafter, he had filed an application for transfer of his registration number in favour of the respondent. The name of the respondent was included in the draw of lots held on 1.8.1995 under the interim order of the Hon'ble High Court Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh dated 31.7.1995 passed in CWP No.10924 of 1995.
23. The appellants as per their policy had been issuing notice to the original applicant by name as also through public notices for appearing before the Committee appointed by the appellants and to verify the genuineness of the application alleged to have been filed by the original applicant in favour of the respondent. Neither the original applicant appeared before the Committee nor the respondent had produced the original applicant before the Committee. It was not because the application for transfer was filed by the original applicant that the plot could be transferred in favour of the respondent but the appellants were to satisfy themselves that the application for transfer on the basis of which the respondent was claiming her rights was genuine and not forged or filed by her in conspiracy with some officials. The time was taken by the appellants for securing the presence of the original applicant. They were not sleeping over the matter but they were taking the genuine steps in accordance with the law which was the duty of the appellants. If the respondent was very keen to seek the transfer of the registration number in her favour without delay, even she was given the option by the appellants to produce the original applicant before the Committee. Even the respondent had failed to do so.
24. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondent was that the appellant had become successful in the draw of lots held on 1.8.1995. The Registration Number of the applicant was transferred in her favour only vide letter dated 25.4.2003 i.e. after about 8 years. Therefore the appellants had taken a long period without any basis in transferring the Registration Number of applicant in her favour. Therefore they have committed deficiency in service.
25. This submission has been considered.
First Appeal No.65 of 2005 9
26. The respondent has pleaded in the complaint that the appellants had not only been issuing notice to Jagjit Singh, applicant asking him to appear but they were also issuing public notices. The appellants have taken the plea in the written statement that it was their duty to verify the genuineness of the applicant who had filed the application for transfer of his Registration Number in favour of the respondent. They had been issuing notices to the applicant personally as also by public notice. Even the option was given to the respondent to produce the original applicant before the appellants/Committee appointed by the appellants for that purpose but even she had failed to do so. The appellants had been issuing such notices. Neither they were sleeping over the matter nor they had any malafide intention or ulterior motives to cause delay. Since such like applications for transfer could be forged by some persons, therefore, the verification of the genuineness of the applications filed for the transfer of Registration Number was essential. The respondents have also proved the letter dated 8.9.1995 (Ex.R-4) and 12.10.1995 (Ex.R-5) by which Jagjit Singh, applicant was asked to appear before the Committee on the dates mentioned in these notices. Notice was also sent to the respondent on 27.12.1995 (Ex.R-6) to produce original applicant Jagjit Singh. Notice was against issued to Jagjist Singh, applicant on 30.4.1996 (Ex.R-7), 5.6.1996 (Ex.R-8), 11.10.2002 (Ex.R-9) and 25.11.2002 (Ex.R-10). These letters were other than the public notices which even according to the respondent were got published by the appellants. Therefore it is clearly proved that the appellants were not sitting over the matter with any bad intention.
27. Similar controversy had come up for consideration before this Commission in First Appeal No.422 of 1999 (Punjab Urban Development Authority and another v. Sanjiv Kumar) decided on 23.12.2009. It was held by this Commission as under : -
"12. It was further pleaded that thereafter a committee was constituted by the appellants on 20.7.1994 to verify the facts/genuineness of the First Appeal No.65 of 2005 10 applications received from the old applicants of the plots filed by them for the transfer of their registration numbers. This step was taken by the appellants for the reason that numerous complaints were received about the fraudulent transfers being made by the bogus persons claiming to be the applicants. The said committee had sent three registered notices to all the applicants to appear before the Committee between 25.9.1995 to 29.9.1995 and to clarify about the application filed for the transfer of the plots. Public notices were also issued for appearance before the committee on 25.10.1995. Another public notice was published in the Tribune dated 5.1.1996 requiring the appearance of original applicants before the committee on 8.1.1996. Such public notice was again published in the Tribune dated 5.5.1996 for appearance on 15/17.5.1996 and another notice dated 23.6.1996 for appearance on 25/26.6.1996. The committee again directed appearance on 14.8.1996. Ultimately in its meeting held on 23.7.1997 the committee authorized the Estate Officer to take decisions on his own on further fresh applications.
13. It was further pleaded that original applicant Atma Ram Bharti was asked to appear vide letter dated 12.1.1996 in person with voter list or ration card to ascertain the genuineness of the transfer application.
Atma Ram Bharti failed to respond. Another letter dated 19.6.1996 was sent to him to respond within 30 days with the requisite documents but there was no First Appeal No.65 of 2005 11 response. Again Atma Ram Bharti was directed to appear vide letter dated 15.11.1996 but to no effect.
14. Atma Ram Bharti vide letter dated 12.12.1996 expressed his inability to appear in person. However he had submitted the certified copy of his ration card and attested passport size photograph with a request to issue the allotment letter in favour of Sanjiv Kumar respondent. On the receipt of this letter, the allotment letter dated 18.3.1997 was issued in favour of Sanjiv Kumar respondent and he was allotted a residential plot measuring 250 sq. yards at the prevalent rate of Rs.1,800/- per sq. yard.
15. On these facts, therefore, it was submitted that there was no delay on the part of the appellants in the issuance of the allotment letter. Rather the delay, if any, was on the part of the original applicant Atma Ram Bharti."
28. In the present case also, not only the original applicant had failed to appear but even the respondent had failed to produce him before the appellants. Therefore, no unnecessary delay was caused by the appellants in transferring the registration number in favour of the respondent.
29. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent was required to pay plot price prevailing on the date when the draw of lots was held and not on the date the allotment letter was issued to her.
30. This submission has been considered.
31. It was held by the Hon'ble National Commission in the judgment dated 20.8.2004 passed in First Appeal No.62 of 1999 (PUDA v. Jaspreet Singh) that the allottee was liable to pay the price prevalent on the date when the First Appeal No.65 of 2005 12 allotment letter was issued and not on the date when the draw of lots was held. It was held as under : -
" In the light of the aforesaid discussion, it is now settled law that the process of draw of lots is the process for the purpose of identification of the eligible allottees. It is a process of selection. The draw of lots does not cloth successful persons with a legal right to allotment at the price prevailing on the date of allotment and the right of offer arises only on the communication of letter of allotment. The price prevailing on date of communication is applicable unless otherwise provided in the scheme. In so far as discrimination in such a selection concerned, it has already been mentioned that according to the judgment in PB Parmar, those who opt to take plots in a particular income-wise, area-wise, scheme in which all plots came to be put in draw of lots may apparently form a class and any discriminatory treatment may be frowned upon. But at the same time the authority could not be expected to ignore the time gap between the two dates, the expenditure required to be incurred by the authority during the abovesaid time gap between the dates of draw of lots and of letter of allotment, the escalation in the market rate of land, the change in policy. They are all relevant factors and could not be ignored and therefore it becomes apparent that the view taken by the learned State Commission could not be justified in view of the aforesaid discussion. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the First Appeal No.65 of 2005 13 date of crystallization of right of an allottee would not be the date of draw of lots but date of issuance of letter of allotment."
32. The facts of Jaspreet Singh's case (supra) are identical to the facts of the present case. In Jaspreet Singh's case the original applicant was Rajesh Kumar. The draw of lots was held on 1.8.1995. The matter was verified and the letter of allotment was issued to Jaspreet Singh on 12.5.1997. By that date, the rate of land was fixed at Rs.3600/- per sq. yard and it was held by the Hon'ble National Commission that Jaspreet Singh was liable to pay the price of the plots at the rate of Rs.3600/- per sq. yard and not at the rate of Rs.1400/- per sq. yard which was prevailing on the date when the draw of lots was held.
33. Moreover, in the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as "Greater Mohali Area Development Authority & Anr. v. Manju Jain and others, I (2011) CPJ 4 (SC)", it has been held that mere draw of lots or even the issuance of allocation letter does not vest any right in the person who has been successful in the draw of lots or to whom the allocation letter has been issued. It was held as under : -
"22. Mere draw of lots/allocation letter does not confer any right to allotment. The system of draw of lots is being resorted to with a view to identify the prospective allottee. It is only a mode, a method, a process to identify the allottee i.e. the process of selection. It is not an allotment by itself. Mere identification or selection of the allottee does not clothe the person selected with a legal right to allotment. (See Delhi Development Authority v. Pushpendra Kumar Jain, 56 91994) DLT 408 (SC) = AIR 1995 SC 1)." First Appeal No.65 of 2005 14
34. This, therefore, shows that the rights are created in the allottee only by the issuance of allotment letter. Therefore, the rate as the plot price applicable to the plot is the rate when the allotment letter is issued.
35. In view of the discussions held above, neither there was any delay caused by the appellants intentionally in the issuance of the transfer letter dated 25.3.2003 or the allotment letter dated 2.6.2003 (Ex.R11) nor the respondent was entitled to pay at the rate prevalent on the date of draw of lots. Rather the allottee was liable to pay the rate prevalent on the date when the allotment letter was issued.
36. It also deserved notice that the registration number of Jagjit Singh applicant was transferred in favour of the respondent by the appellants vide allotment letter dated 25.3.2003 (Ex.C26 and Ex.R2). It was specifically stated in this letter that the transferee would be liable to pay the plot price at the rate prevalent on the date of allotment. If the respondent had any objection, she should have refused to accept the transfer letter or would have challenged its legality. Thereafter, the allotment letter dated 2.6.2003 was issued in favour of the respondent demanding the plot price @ Rs.3744/- per square yard and the tentative plot price was quoted as Rs.18,72,000/- (Ex.C27 and Ex.R11). No objection was raised by the respondent at that time. Thereafter, she deposited a sum of Rs.5,60,000/- against receipt No.4440 dated 9.6.2003 (Ex.C29). No objection was raised at that time. The respondent admitted having deposited this amount in the letter dated 24.6.2003 (Ex.R12) submitted by the authorised signatory of the respondent by which she demanded possession. No objection was raised by the respondent in this letter. The possession of the plot was delivered to her on 2.7.2003 (Ex.R2). No objection was raised by the respondent at that time also. Rather it was specifically mentioned in the letter for delivery of possession that if in future any more amount was demanded from her, she will deposit the same within 30 days. She had not raised any objection to this condition also. First Appeal No.65 of 2005 15
37. Thereafter, the respondent had deposited another amount of Rs.11,71,800/- vide receipt dated 30.7.2003 (Ex.C30). The respondent alleges that she had sent the forwarding letter dated 30.7.2003 (Ex.C31) in which she had deposited this amount under protest
38. Therefore, it appears to be a clever move on the part of the respondent for not raising any objection at the earlier stage till she got possession on 2.7.2003 (Ex.R3). In these circumstances, reference can again be made to the judgment of this Commission passed in First Appeal No.422 of 1999 in Sanjiv Kumar's case (supra) in which it was held as under : -
"17. In this context, reference may be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as "State of Punjab and anr. vs. Mewa Singh" AIR 2006 SUPREME COURT 3491 in which it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that where a party had agreed by filing an affidavit to the prevalent rate then the courts are not justified to give a direction to the contrary.
18. It was also held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in another judgment reported as "BAREILLY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. VRINDA GUJARATI AND OTHERS" (2004) 4 Supreme Court Cases 606 that the authority is entitled to collect the enhanced price in terms of the contract. Allottees after undertaking to pay the enhanced amount and after taking possession of the flats on that ground cannot be allowed to raise frivolous contentions to avoid payment to the Authority."First Appeal No.65 of 2005 16
39. The Hon'ble National Commission was also pleased to hold in the judgment dated 20.8.2004 passed in First Appeal No.62 of 1999 in Jaspreet Singh's case (supra) as under : -
"An allottee who had accepted the allotment and made payment after entering into the contract, could not successfully file a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act for the purpose of seeking refund of the amount paid in excess over other allottees having been allotted plots etc. earlier in time though the names of the complainant as well as other allottees came to be selected in the same draw of lots. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is not possible to sustain the view taken by the learned State Commission."
40. The present complaint, therefore, was not only frivolous but a mischievous litigation thrust by the respondent on the appellants. It not only wasted the money of the appellants but also wasted the time of the Court. The respondent wanted to enjoy a plot measuring 500 square yards without making its payment in accordance with law which is less than Rs.20 lacs.
41. Accordingly, the present appeal is accepted with costs of Rs.50,000/- and the impugned judgment dated 20.10.2004 is set aside. If the respondent fails to make the payment of Rs.50,000/- within a period of 2 months after the receipt of a copy of this order, the appellants would be at liberty to recover it in accordance with law.
42. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 13.1.2005. This amount of Rs.25,000/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be refunded by the registry to the appellants by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days. First Appeal No.66 of 2005 First Appeal No.65 of 2005 17
43. In view of the reasons recorded above, this appeal is also accepted with costs of Rs.50,000/- and the impugned judgment dated 20.10.2004 is set aside. If the respondent fails to make the payment of Rs.50,000/- within a period of 2 months after the receipt of a copy of this order, the appellants would be at liberty to recover it in accordance with law.
44. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 13.1.2005. This amount of Rs.25,000/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be refunded by the registry to the appellants by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
45. The arguments in both these appeals were heard on 28.3.2011 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
46. The appeals could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL) PRESIDENT (AMARPREET SHARMA) MEMBER (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON) MEMBER March 31, 2011.
Paritosh