State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
D.D. K. Sons Precision Engineering Pvt. ... vs The Estate Officer on 28 February, 2022
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH Complaint case No. : 258 of 2019 Date of Institution : 20.11.2019 Date of Decision : 28.02.2022 D.D.K. Sons Precision Engineering Pvt. Ltd., House No.8, Sector 9, Chandigarh through its Authorized Representative Sh.Lajpat Sharma ......Complainant V e r s u s The Estate Officer, Sector 17, U.T., Chandigarh email Id:[email protected] ....Opposite party BEFORE: JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT. MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.
MR.RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER.
Present through Video conferencing:-
Sh.Arshdeep Bhullar, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Rajinder Singh, Govt. Pleader for the opposite party.
PER JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT Before going into the merits of this case, it is important to mention here that, on 25.02.2022, Counsel for the complainant has submitted calculation sheet depicting that an amount of Rs.13,81,821/- is still payable by the opposite party. The said application stood allowed; calculation sheet has been placed on record and copy there was also supplied to the opposite party.
Now coming to the facts of this case. This complaint has a long chequered history. In the year 1981, the complainant applied for allotment of an industrial plot in Industrial Area, Phase III, Chandigarh, in the project of the opposite party, for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. Thereafter, on account of some dispute with regard to ownership of the project land, the matter was taken by some allottees before the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, which was decided on 30.08.2001. The said order was challenged by some allottees as well as the Chandigarh Administration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.4725 of 2002, titled as "Hira Tikkoo Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh", which was decided vide order dated 13.04.2004, Annexure C-1, as under:-
"As a result of detailed discussion aforesaid, the appeals and connected matters are disposed of by partly maintaining the directions contained in the impugned order of the High Court but with the modifications, substitution and addition of directions as mentioned below :-
1. The prayer of the appellants/petitioners for directing the authorities of Chandigarh Administration to hand over possession of the plots allotted on the basis of draw held in November, 1982 is rejected.
2. The total available plots of different sizes as mentioned in Annexure-A to the affidavit of the Administration of UTC, shall be allotted by draw of lots separately or jointly as per the procedure evolved by the Administration to 23 consentees found eligible in accordance with the new environmental norms and to 13 allottees of one kanal plot. It is for the Administration of UTC to work out the manner in which draw of lots will be held between 23 consentees and 13 allottees of one kanal plot for the available number of plots of different sizes as contained in Annexure-A to the affidavit. It is made clear that the Administration of UTC will have liberty, keeping in view the industrial projects submitted by the consentees and other restrictions, if they make it necessary, to suitably alter the sizes of plots to accommodate the identified 23 consentees. It is clarified that allotment of plots from the area of the scheme which falls within restricted 900 metres zone from the air-base under Aircrafts Act, would be granted by the Administration with a condition that if in future, any such restriction is reimposed, the allotments may be cancelled and there would be no liability on the Administration of UTC to pay any damage or compensation to the parties due to non-utilisation of plots or its cancellation. If the allotments of plots in the restricted zone are cancelled due to restriction aforesaid, the price paid for the plots shall be refunded to the parties concerned without any liability of interest on the price which remained as deposit with the Administration.
3. The consentees and allottees of one kanal plot, who even though found eligible for allotment, because of limited number of plots (as mentioned in annexure-A), do not get accommodation in the available plots, they be considered on the same price paid by them for alternative plots in the new industrial area phase-III i.e. Mouli Jagran. It is made clear that the requirement of the Act and the Rules and the new environmental norms as existing on the date of fresh allotment of plots in the industrial area phase-III would be made applicable to such consentees and allottees of one kanal plot.
4. The non-consentees shall be granted by the Administration of UTC, option by asking them to submit their willingness in writing within a period of one month from the date of this order for considering allottment to each of them a suitable plot in the new industrial zone Phase III at Mouli Jagran. It is left to the Administration of UTC to evolve a fair and just method of allotment by draw of lots in accordance with the Act and the Rules. It is made clear that the allotment of plots in the new industrial area III i.e. Mouli Jagran would be at the price prevailing on the date of fresh allotments. The price already paid by the non-consentees for their original plots, if so far not refunded to them, shall be adjusted towards the total price payable for the new sites. It is also made clear that in accordance with existing industrial policy and the environmental norms, the allottees will have to submit their project reports for considering viability of their proposed industries by the Administration.
In the event, the non-consentees are unwilling to take plots in the new industrial zone phase III or their project reports are ultimately found to be not approvable, the price deposited by them for the original plots would be refunded to them with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of initial deposit.
5. The reliefs in the nature of directions made in favour of consentees and non-consentees and allottees of one kanal plot are restricted only to such of them who were parties before the High Court. All claims of remaining consentees or non-consentees or allottees of one kanal plot, who were not parties in the cases before the High Court, stand rejected.
6. Notification dated 28.4.2000 containing new Industrial Policy would not be made applicable to the allottees of plots in phase-I & II who are successful in fresh draw of lots to be held under the above directions.
7. The Administration of UTC shall complete the requisite formalities and carry out the directions made above in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of this order and hand over possession of the plots to the successful allottees.
8. All applications seeking interventions, impleadment as parties and special leave petitions filed by parties, who were not parties before the High Court, are, hereby, rejected.
As a result of the discussion aforesaid, the appeals and connected matters are disposed of by substituting/modifying above- mentioned directions for the directions contained in the impugned order of the High Court.
Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs which shall be borne by the parties as incurred by them....."
However, during the period intervening, the complainant approached the opposite party, a number of times, with a request to deliver possession of the plot in question and also adjust the amount paid, yet, when he lost hope of getting possession, left with no alternative, he made request for refund of the amount of Rs.4,04,308/- paid by him alongwith interest, in terms of order dated 13.04.2004 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India i.e. refund of amount paid alongwith interest @12% p.a.. However, the amount, as ordered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not been paid by the opposite party to the complainant till date. Out of the total amount, only an amount of Rs.2,61,750/- was credited in the account of the complainant and that too on 12.02.2020 i.e. during pendency of this complaint. Except this amount, remaining amount has not been paid by the opposite party and thus, the complainant is seeking remaining amount of Rs.13,81,821/-, as shown in the calculation sheet referred to above.
The opposite party contested the complaint by way of filing written reply, wherein it has been stated that the complainant had requested the opposite party to hand over possession of the plot vide application dated 23.03.2018 and the sanction to refund the amount alongwith 12% interest calculated upto 31.07.2008 was issued vide endorsement no.302388-91 and 302392-95 dated 12.03.2019, as the complainant was not declared eligible by Negotiation Committee, as he owned 50% share in industrial plot no.189A, Phase 1, Chandigarh. In para no.23 of the reply, it has been stated by the opposite party as under:-
".......it is submitted that the amount lying in this office has already been refunded to the complainant with 12% interest on his application and there is no delay on the part of this office...."
In the rejoinder filed the complainant reiterated all his averments and controverted those of the opposite party.
The parties led evidence in support of their case.
We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and scanned the material available on the record, very carefully.
During the course of proceedings of this case, some documents have been placed on record by the opposite party showing refund of the entire amount to the complainant but those documents has been denied by the complainant. Therefore, this Commission has specifically directed the opposite party to furnish details of payment of the amount, allegedly made to the complainant. However, in pursuance thereof, both the parties filed their affidavits. Sh.Lajpat Sharma, on behalf of the complainant, has submitted that only an amount of Rs.2,61,750/- has been credited in the account of the complainant on 12.02.2020 and no other amount has been received against Rs.4,04,308/- or interest as awarded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
On the other hand, in its affidavit, the opposite party through Sh.Harjeet Singh Sindhu, PCS, Assistant Estate Officer has stated as under:-
"That the complainant has mentioned in his Affidavit dated 11.02.2022 before this Hon'ble Commission that only a sum of Rs. 2,61,705/- has been credited on 12.02.2020 through RTGS in the account of the complainant as mentioned in the sanction orders, however, as per record the vouchers of Rs.1,13,524/- and Rs.2,90,784/- were sent to the Central Treasury, U.T., Chandigarh for refund of the amount to the complainant.
. That the clarification regarding amount of Rs. 2,61,705/- has been credited in the account of complainant can be replied by the drawer bank, however, it may be a credited after the deduction of applicable relevant taxes.
That the office of Estate Office, U.T, Chandigarh vide letter No. 615 dated 24.02.2022 made request to the District Treasury Officer, Central Treasury, U.T., Chandigarh to supply the information for not crediting the amount of Rs.1,13,524/ in the account of the complainant. A copy of the letter is attached. herewith as Annexure - B. That the District Treasury Officer, Central Treasury, U.T., Chandigarh vide letter No. 289 dated 24.02.2022 has submitted the reply to the fact that a sum of Rs. 1,13,524/- has been failed, therefore said amount could not credited in the account of the complainant due to unknown technical reason.
That the District Treasury Officer, Central Treasury, U.T., Chandigarh had not informed to the office of Estate Office in writing at that time, that the amount of Rs.1,13, 524/- as mentioned in the voucher has not been credited in the account of the complainant and this information has been sought only vide letter dated 24.02.2022.
That the Opposite Party is still ready to pay a sum of Rs.1,13,524/- to the complainant after seeking order from the competent authority."
Thus, it makes it very clear that Rs.1,13,524/- was not received by the complainant. Furthermore, bare perusal of record transpires that only an amount of Rs.2,61,750/- has been credited in the account of the complainant on 12.02.2020 and no other amount has been received against price amount of Rs.4,04,308/- or interest as awarded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. As is evident from the calculation sheet, submitted by the complainant, an amount of Rs.13,81,821/- is still payable by the opposite party, in lines with the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. By not making the said payment to the complainant, the opposite party is deficient in providing service and adopted unfair trade practice.
For the reasons recorded above, this complaint is partly allowed with costs. The opposite party is directed as under :-
To pay the remaining amount of Rs.13,81,821/- to the complainant.
To pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1 lac for causing mental agony and harassment to the complainant.
To pay cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.35,000/- to the complainant This order be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which the aforesaid entire awarded amount shall entail interest @12% p.a. from the date of passing of this order till realization.
Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced.
28.02.2022 _ Sd/-
[JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI] PRESIDENT Sd/-
(PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER Sd/-
(RAJESH K. ARYA) MEMBER Rg.