National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Municipal Corporation vs Sushil Kumar Mahajan And Ors. on 12 May, 2006
Equivalent citations: 3(2006)CPJ219(NC)
ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Member
1. These 11 appeals arise from a common order passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh, where the respondents/ complainants had filed complaints alleging deficiency in service on the part of Chandigarh Administration, Estate Officer, U.T. Chandigarh, and Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh the appellants before us.
2. Notices were issued to the respondents for 28.4.2006. Since Counsel for the appellants (Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh) could not reach Delhi in time, all these appeals were adjourned for 2.5.2006.
3. Despite notice to the Chandigarh Administration through its Administrator as also Estate Officer, U.T. Chandigarh, none is present and hence were proceeded ex parte.
4. Very briefly the facts of the case are that the respondents/complainants were allotted residential plots through auction carried out by the Estate Officer in 1996 for which 25% of the bid money was deposited by them in early 1997. It was the case of the respondents/ complainants that when they reached the spot for taking possession along with concerned officers, they found that there was no approach road and there was no basic facilities like sewage, drinking water, rain water drainage system etc. When it was pointed out by the officers concerned of the respondents, they showed their inability to point out the actual site, in view of which they neither were able to get the possession at that time nor seen any development on the spot, and since the issue was not getting settled, a complaint was filed before the State Commission. The complaint was opposed by all the three opposite parties. In fact, the plea of the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 before the State Commission was that the basic facilities have been provided and the complainants have been given possession. The plea of the opposite party No. 3 before the State Commission was that auction had taken place in 1996 whereas they came into existence only on 1.6.1996 and there is no connection with Estate Officer or any other officer regarding provision of basic facilities like sewage system, drainage etc. and it was their contention, that as soon as they were approached in middle of 1997, they started survey of the area and estimates for providing the said facilities were prepared and sent for administrative approval.
After perusal the material on record and hearing the arguments and the evidence brought on record, the State Commission held that the opposite parties before the State Commission were deficient in providing approach road, drainage system, street lights and plinth level to plots and hence they are entitled to interest @18% on the sum deposited with the respondents till the certificates is issued by the Chief Engineer, U.T. Chandigarh or the Officer next below to him that the site is fit for construction. The complainants were also awarded Rs. 15,000 as compensation for harassment in each case. Aggrieved by this order it is only the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh, who have filed all these appeals before us.
5. We heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, we find that there is no disputing the fact that even at the time of passing the order by the State Commission, basic amenities were not provided. It is well settled law that these urban Local Bodies are a 'State' within the meaning given to it in the Constitution and it cannot be any one's case that they will not provide development plots and except the people to start building houses without basic amenities like drinking water, sewage, street lights, approach roads etc.
6. In these appeals, Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh is the appellant before us and it is argued on their behalf that they came into existence only in June 1996; as also the fact that auction money was received by the Chandigarh Administration as also, the Estate Officer. However when these deficiencies were brought to their notice in June 1997, they prepared the estimates and sent them for administrative approval. We are satisfied that the Municipal Corporation came into existence on 1.6.1996 and there is also no dispute that the area in question fell within the limits of Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh. It cannot be any one's case that local bodies shall not provide the basic facilities enumerated earlier and they also cannot take umbrage under any ignorance of this fact, in view of their own admission that these deficiencies were brought to their notice in June 1997, estimates were prepared and sent for administrative approval. The Local Bodies job cannot come to an end with these procedural aspects. The law itself vests on them the responsibility to provide the basic amenities. Hence they cannot wash their own hands on the simple premise that they came into existence on 1.6.1996, which has no bearing in the facts and circumstances of this case and also the fact that the money was received by Estate Officer.
7. The order of the State Commission is quite clear that it is the 'respondents' which are three in number, i.e., U.T. Chandigarh Administration, Estate Officer, Chandigarh and Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh, who have been saddled with the responsibility of paying the interest on the deposited amount till the basic amenities are provided.
8. In the aforementioned circumstances, we see no merit in the pleas taken by the learned Counsel for the appellant except that rate of interest granted by the State Commission is on high side. As per law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh II (2004) CPJ 12 (S.C.) : III (2004) SLT 161, when the possession has been given, the rate of interest shall not exceed 12% p.a. Only to this extent the appeal is allowed that instead of interest @ 18% p.a., it shall be @ 12% p.a. Only to this extent all these appeals are allowed and order passed by the State Commission stands modified.
9. All the appeals stand disposed of in above terms.