National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Improvement Trust, Through Its ... vs Surinder Kaur, Wife Of Gurbax Singh And ... on 10 April, 2007
ORDER
M.B. Shah, J. (President)
1. It is the case of the Complainant that residential plots admeasuring 137 sq. yards in 12 acre diggi area scheme of Improvement Trust, Sangrur, were allotted to the Complainants vide allotment letter dated 14.5.2001. The total consideration was for a sum of Rs. 1,95,636/- on deferred payment basis. It is the contention of the Complainant that the Petitioner was required to provide amenities like water supply, sewerage, road and electricity and thereafter deliver the possession of the plot. The failure of the Petitioner to provide the essential amenities, as stated above, resulted in delay of construction of the building for gainful utilization, and, as a result, the cost of construction went up considerably in the meantime. Hence, Complaint No. 55/04 was filed before the District Forum on 23.1.2004 wherein it was prayed that the Petitioner be directed to deliver possession of the plot after providing basic amenities; pay interest at the rate of 18% p.a. on the amount recovered from the Complainant; refund the amount of interest recovered from her; pay Rs. 1 lakh on account of escalation of cost of construction, and building material; Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment; and, Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. The District Forum from the material available on record, arrived at the conclusion, that these amenities were completed in November, 2002. And, therefore, the empty offer of delivery of possession of the plot by allotment letter dated 14.5.2001 appears to be meaningless, and hence by its order dated 30.8.2004 directed as under:
(a). refund or give credit to the Complainant for the amount recovered from her on account of interest on the instalments of the price of the plot;
(b). to pay compensation to the Complainant in the form of interest on the amount already deposited by her at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of deposit till the communication of an effective offer of delivery of possession of the plot; and,
(c). to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- to the Complainant on account of litigation expenses.
3. Against that order, Appeal No. 1329 of 2004 was filed by the Petitioner Trust before that Pujab State Commission. That Appeal was decided by the State Commission by judgment and order dated 18.4.2006. The State Commission referred to the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh and Ors. v. Shantikunj Investment Pvt. Ltd. Etc. , and modified the order passed by the District Forum. The State Commission observed that as per the findings recorded by the District Forum the basic amenities were completed in November, 2002. As the allotment letter was issued in May, 2001, if six months' time is taken into consideration, then, the Complainant must have started construction in November, 2001. Considering this aspect, the State Commission observed that there was delay of one year and, therefore, there must have been escalation of cost of construction of building, and, hence awarded compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. With that direction, the order passed by the District Forum was modified.
4. Against that order, this Revision Petition is filed.
5. The remaining Revision Petitions - Revision Petition No. 1671 of 2006; 1672 of 2006; and, 1673 of 2006, are also filed by the Improvement Trust, Sangrur, against the orders of the State Commission, Punjab. The State Commission, relying upon the decision rendered by it in the matter of Surinder Kaur (Appeal No. 1329 of 2004), and for the same reasons mentioned therein, as stated above, passed the orders directing the Petitioner Improvement Trust to pay a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the Complainants of each case. Hence, against the said similar orders of the State Commission, the Improvement Trust, Sangrur, has filed these three Revision Petitions.
6. Submissions:
The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner - Improvement Trust submitted that there was no justifiable grounds for awarding compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. There is nothing on record to establish that there is escalation of price in cost of construction or that the Complainants were keen to construct over the plot. He further submitted that there is nothing on record to establish that kutcha road was not constructed prior to that or some other facilities were not available at the relevant time in November, 2001.
7. He further, submitted, that in any case such delay in providing the necessary facilities was due to some dispute with the labourers who are residing in the area, who twice dug out the pipeline laid down by the Petitioner for which the Petitioner should not be penalized.
8. The State Commission, Punjab, decided the appeals filed by the Trust as well as the Complainants, relying on the decision rendered by it in Improvement Trust, Sangrur v. Surinder Kaur First Appeal No. 1329 of 2004, which is the subject matter of Revision Petition No. 1339 of 2006 filed by the Petitioner Trust before this Commission and passed identical orders in other matters.
9. Findings:
For deciding these Revision Petitions, we would first refer to the observations made by the Supreme Court in the Case of Municipal Corporation (Supra), upon which reliance is placed by the State Commission, wherein it has been held.
28. It is true that once allotment of the land has been made in favour of the allottee, he can take possession of the property and use the same in accordance with the Rules. That does not mean that all the facilities should be provided first for the so-called enjoyment of the property as this was not the condition of auction. The party knew the location and condition prevailing thereon. The interpretation given by the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and contended before us cannot be accepted as a settled proposition of law. In the present case, as per the Act and the Rules it is never a condition precedent of the auction or as per the lease that all the facilities like road, water supply, street lighting, drainage, sewerage, public building, horticulture, landscaping shall be a condition precedent. Nowhere in the conditions of lease or in the auction is it provided that this will be done first though it had been contended by the Administration that the basic amenities have already been provided. Be that as it may, in the present context it cannot be construed that it is a condition precedent.
10. The Court finally observed that though it was not a condition precedent but there is obligation on the part of the Administration to provide necessary facilities for full enjoyment of the same by the allottees and directed the High Court to "consider that in case where kutcha road, drainage, sewerage, drinking water facilities have been provided, no relief shall be granted but in case any of the facilities had not been provided, then the High Court may examine the same and consider grant of proportionate relief in the matter of payment of penalty under Rule 12(3) and ( sic interest for) delay in payment of equated instalment or ground rent or part thereof under Rule 12(3-A) only."
11. Considering the aforesaid law on the subject, it is apparent that, in the present case, there is no reason to grant compensation for delay of one year in providing the facilities as claimed by the Complainants. There is nothing on record to establish that the Petitioner has promised as a condition precedent that all the facilities as claimed by the Complainant would be provided prior to allotment of the plot; neither the District Forum nor the State Commission has discussed any condition or promise given by the Petitioner before allotment under the scheme framed by the Improvement Trust.
12. On the contrary, the District Forum specifically arrived at the conclusion that the letter of allotment, Ex.C-2, is silent about the obligation of the Opposite Parties to provide the amenities of water supply, sewerage system, roads, electricity, parks and water works, etc. and that there was nothing on file to show that the Petitioner had promised to provide separate water supply/sewerage connection for the plot allotted to the Complainant.
13. Further, the Rules and Regulations regarding allotment of plots in "12 Acre Daggi Development Scheme and the 23.66 Acre Captain Karan Singh Nagar Scheme" specifically provide that "Rule:6 - The sites will be allotted as it is where it is"; and, Rule : 8 - "The water supply, sewerage, metalled roads, street lights and parks etc, will be provided by the Trust in the near future on warfooting".
14. Hence, it would be difficult to arrive at the conclusion that the Complainants are entitled to have compensation for the alleged loss due to delay of one year in providing the facilities such as drinking water, drainage, sewerage, roads, etc. It is to be reiterated that the sites were allotted "as it is where it is" basis. As per the rule, the said facilities were to be provided in the near future. But in any case, it was not a condition precedent. Therefore, it is apparent that the award of compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the Complainants cannot be justified. Hence, that part of the order requires to be set aside.
15. However, considering that there was delay of one year in providing the facilities as mentioned above, it would be just and proper to direct the Petitioner Improvement Trust to grant three years period from November, 2002 to November, 2005 for construction of the premises and not to levy any non-construction penalty for the said period.
16. In the result, the Revision Petitions are partly allowed. The order passed by the State Commission directing the Petitioner to pay the compensation of Rs. 50,000/- is set aside. The Petitioner Improvement Trust is directed to grant three years period from November, 2002 to November, 2005 for construction of the premises and not to levy any non-construction penalty for the said period, and, if levied, shall be refunded.
17. The Revision Petitions are disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.