State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Punjab Urban Planning And Development ... vs Amarjit Singh S/O S.Rattan Singh on 30 October, 2009
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SCO NOS.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1427 of 2004
Date of institution: 22.11.2004
Date of decision : 30 .10.2009
1. Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority through its Chief
Administrator, PUDA Bhawan, Sector 62, Mohali, District Ropar.
2. The Estate Officer, Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority,
PUDA Bhawan, Sector 62, SAS Nagar (Mohali), Distt. Ropar.
.....Appellants
Versus
Amarjit Singh s/o S.Rattan Singh r/o House No.611, Phase 3B1, SAS Nagar
(Mohali), Distt. Ropar.
.....Respondent
First Appeal against the order dated 01.10.2004
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Ropar.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President
Lt.Col. Darshan Singh (Retd.), Member
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.Rajesh Sood, Advocate
For the respondent : Sh.Rajbir Singh, Advocate
JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT
Amarjit Singh respondent was allotted plot No.3086-C measuring 500 square yards in Sector 69-A, Urban Estate, Mohali by the appellants vide allotment letter dated 03.03.1997. The tentative price of the plot was Rs.9 lakhs @ Rs.1800/- per square yard. The respondent had made the payment of Rs.70,000/- as earnest money before allotment. As per condition No.3 of the allotment letter, the respondent was to deposit the amount of Rs.1,55,000/- to complete 25% of the tentative price of the plot which he had deposited vide receipt dated 27.03.1996.
2. It was further pleaded that the respondent had deposited a sum of Rs.1 lakh on 19.06.1998. Rs.80,000/- were deposited on 07.07.1998 towards the First Appeal No.1427 of 2004 2 first instalment including the interest as it had fallen due on 03.03.1998. Thereafter, the respondent deposited a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- vide receipt dated 27.09.2002 and another amount of Rs.2 lakh on the same day. He also deposited a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- on 18.11.2002 towards the principal amount and interest of second, third and 5th instalments which had fallen due on 03.03.1999, 03.03.2000, 03.03.2001 and 03.03.2002. He had also deposited a sum of Rs.67,500/- as penalty.
3. It was further pleaded that as per conditions No.1 and 15 of the allotment letter dated 03.03.1997, the respondent was required to complete the construction of the building on this plot within a period of three years from the date of allotment. Therefore, the appellants were required to deliver possession of the plot to the respondent soon after its allotment. However, the possession was not delivered.
4. It was further pleaded that the appellants vide letter dated 22.07.1999 informed the respondent that the delivery of the plot which was allotted to him was not feasible. Therefore, the possession could not be delivered. The respondent was asked to give his consent for allotment of an alternative plot. The respondent consented vide his application dated 02.08.1999. In pursuance thereof, the appellants vide allotment letter dated 27.10.1999 allotted plot No.3116 in Sector 69, Mohali to the respondent in lieu of plot No.3086 in Sector 69, Mohali.
5. It was further pleaded that the appellants failed to deliver possession of plot No.3116, Sector 69, Mohali to the respondent. Rather the appellants sent another letter dated 24.09.2002 to the respondent informing him that the possession of plot No.3116, Sector 69, Mohali was not feasible and, therefore, plot No.2698, Sector 69, Mohali was allotted to him through draw of lots held on 12.07.2002 as an alternative plot. The respondent was also informed that possession of this plot would be given within a period of 60 days. First Appeal No.1427 of 2004 3
6. It was further pleaded that the respondent vide his letter dated 07.11.2002 requested the appellants to deliver possession of this plot to him. On this, the appellants vide their letter dated 31.01.2003 informed the respondent that he could take possession of the plot on any working day between 12.00 p.m. to 1.00 p.m.. Thereafter, possession of this plot No.2698 in Sector 69, Mohali was delivered to the respondent on 20.02.2003.
7. It was further pleaded that delivery of possession to the respondent was delayed by the appellants for about 6 years due to sheer negligence on their part. It had resulted in huge financial loss to the respondent on account of escalation of costs of construction. The respondent could not put the plot to any beneficial use. Therefore, the respondent was entitled to interest @ 18% p.a. on the amounts deposited by him towards the price of the plot till the date of delivery of possession i.e. 20.02.2003 by way of compensation for the loss suffered by him.
8. It was also pleaded that the appellants had charged penalty/penal interest for the period for which the payment was delayed by the respondent. Therefore, the amount of penalty/penal interest be also waived. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellants, the respondent filed a complaint against them in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ropar (in short "the District Forum") for damages, costs and interest.
9. The appellants filed the written reply. It was admitted that the respondent was allotted plot No.3086-C measuring 500 square yards in Sector 69, Urban Estate, SAS Nagar (Mohali) vide allotment letter dated 03.03.1997. It was also admitted that the respondent had deposited a sum of Rs.70,000/- as earnest money and he had deposited a sum of Rs.1,55,000/- on 27.03.1997 after the letter of allotment was issued to him. It was also admitted that the respondent had deposited a sum of Rs.1 lakh on 19.06.1998. Rs.80,000/- was deposited on 07.07.1998 against the instalment which had fallen due on 03.03.1998. It was also admitted that the appellants had deposited the amount of Rs.8,35,000/- including the interest amount of Rs.6,75,000/-.
First Appeal No.1427 of 2004 4
10. It was also pleaded that the first instalment was delayed by 126 days and penalty @ 18% p.a. worked out to Rs.11,185/-. It was not deposited by the respondent. Now the respondent had deposited the principal amount of 5 instalments of Rs.5,62,500/- only but as per the allotment letter, he was also to deposit interest. It was specified in the letter of allotment that if the allottee fails to deposit the amount within the scheduled period, he would be liable to pay penal interest. It was denied if the delayed payment of instalments relates back to the due date.
11. It was further pleaded that the allottee was to complete construction within a period of 3 years from the date of possession and not from the date of allotment. It was denied if the possession was required to be delivered immediately after the letter of allotment. It was admitted that delivery of possession of plot No.3086-C, Sector 69, Urban Estate, SAS Nagar was not feasible and the letter was sent to the respondent to give his consent on 22.7.1999 for allotment of an alternative plot and the respondent had given his consent on 2.8.1999 voluntarily and without any objection for an alternative plot. It was also admitted that plot No.3116 measuring 500 square yards in Sector 69, Mohali was allotted to the respondent vide allotment letter dated 27.10.1999 in lieu of plot No.3086-C, Sector 69, Mohali.
12. It was also admitted that even delivery of possession of plot No.3116, Sector 69, Mohali was not feasible and the respondent was allotted alternative plot No.2698, Sector 69, Mohali by holding draw of lots on 12.07.2002 vide allotment letter dated 24.09.2002. It was also admitted that the respondent had requested for possession of the plot and the appellants vide letter dated 30.1.2003 had asked the respondent to take possession of the plot and possession of plot No.2698, Sector 69, Mohali measuring 500 square yards was delivered to the respondent on 20.2.2003.
13. It was denied if delivery of possession of the plot allotted to the respondent was delayed due to sheer negligence on the part of the appellants. It First Appeal No.1427 of 2004 5 was further pleaded that the respondent had accepted the allotment of plot No.2698, Sector 69, Mohali and on his request, the possession of this plot was delivered to the respondent on 20.2.2003. It was denied if the respondent has suffered any financial loss due to escalation in the cost of construction or that he could not put the plot to any beneficial use. It was denied if there was any deficiency in service on the part of the appellants. Hence, dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
14. Amarjit Singh filed his affidavit Ex.C/1. He also proved documents Ex.C/2 to Ex.C/15. On the other hand, the appellants filed the affidavit of T.K.Goyal, Estate Officer, PUDA as Ex.R/1. The appellants also proved document Ex.R/2.
15. After considering the pleadings of the parties and the affidavits/documents produced on the file by them, the learned District Forum accepted the complaint with costs of Rs.2000/- vide impugned order dated 01.10.2004 and the following reliefs were granted to the respondent: -
"i) to pay to the complainant interest @ 12% P.A. on the amounts deposited by him towards 25% of the price of the plot and on the amounts of first five instalments from the respective dates of deposit upto the date of delivery of possession i.e. 20.2.2003;
ii) to pay to the complainant compensation of Rs.25,000/- for harassment & mental agony.
Compliance within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order failing which the amount of Rs.25,000/- allowed as interest would also carry interest @ 9% P.A. till realisation."
16. Hence, this appeal.
First Appeal No.1427 of 2004 6
17. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants was that the appeal be accepted and the impugned judgment dated 01.10.2004 be set aside.
18. 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.
19. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
20. The factual position is admitted between the parties that the respondent was allotted plot No.3086-C, Sector 69, Urban Estate, Mohali measuring 500 square yards vide allotment letter dated 3.3.1997. The possession of this plot was not feasible on which the appellants wrote letter dated 22.7.1999. The respondent had given consent application dated 2.8.1999 and the respondent was allotted plot No.3116, Sector 69, Mohali vide allotment letter dated 27.10.1999. Even the delivery of possession of this plot was not feasible. Then the appellants held draw of lots on 12.7.2002 and the respondent was allotted plot No.2698, Sector 69, Mohali vide allotment letter dated 24.9.2002. The respondent applied for its possession on 7.11.2002 and the appellants informed the respondent vide their letter dated 31.01.2003 to take delivery of possession on any working day and the respondent had taken its possession on 20.2.2003 without any protest or objection.
21. The delay in delivery of possession had taken place not because of any negligence on the part of the appellants but only because the delivery of possession of earlier original plot No.3086-C, Sector 69 and of subsequent plot plot No.3116, Sector 69 allotted in alternative, was not feasible.
22. Similar matter had come up for consideration before this Commission in First Appeal No.275 of 2006 (PUDA through its Chief Administrator and another v. Charanjit Singh Bakshi) decided on 16.02.2009 and it was observed as under : -
"28. The public body like the appellants acquires a particular piece of land and then the plots are First Appeal No.1427 of 2004 7 demarcated, draw of lots is held and the plots are allotted. It is always a matter of chance that the acquisition of that area is disputed by one person or the other. In the facts of this case, this plot fell in that area over which Friends Cooperative Society claimed its ownership and both the appellants and the said Society entered into litigation to ascertain their respective title over it. Because of that litigation the appellants could not construct the roads and could not make the water supply or sewerage available in that area and for that reason the appellants themselves have held that the plot was not feasible. Accordingly the appellants asked the respondent vide their letter dated 12.7.1999 (Ex.C2) if the respondent wanted to have an alternative plot. The respondent expressed his willingness vide letter dated 20.7.1999 (Ex.C3) and the appellants allotted him Plot No.3150, Sector 69, Mohali vide letter dated 3.11.1999.
29. The appellants are a public body. They have to take decision by passing resolution and by taking some procedural steps. It was not a private builder that once the plot is held to be non-feasible, alternative plot is allotted the next day. The appellants being the public body has to adopt certain procedure and to find out where and when the alternative plots can be allotted. In the present case, it has taken a period of about four months, after taking the consent from the respondent, in allotting the alternative plot to him." First Appeal No.1427 of 2004 8
23. It was further observed by this Commission in Charanjit Singh Bakshi's case as under :-
"35. After this decision is taken certain procedure was to be followed and all the allottees were to be treated equally. No preference could be shown to the respondent as it could be challenged in the Courts of law. Therefore, alternative land was to be found out for allotting plots to all equally situated allottees. Feasibility was to be checked and the name was to be put in the list of persons who were eligible candidates. The date of draw of lots was to be fixed and the draw of lots was to be held. The entire procedure was to be adopted. It was duly adopted by the appellants and the draw of lots was held on 12.7.2002. Alternative plot No.1167, Sector 69, Mohali was allotted to the respondent on the same terms and conditions.
36. After the respondent succeeded in the draw of lots, formalities were to be completed. The respondent applied for its possession on 6.1.2004 and the appellants had replied him immediately on 22.1.2004 and asked him to take possession of the alternative plot allotted to him on any working day and the respondent got the possession of the plot on 12.2.2004.
37. If the matter is to be examined from the angle of a private individual there may be delay but if the functioning of the Government Departments is considered then the whole period of delay stands explained by detailed procedure which is required to First Appeal No.1427 of 2004 9 be followed and the formalities which are required to be completed. There is no evidence to show if the appellants have committed any intentional delay. Nothing has come on the file to prove if the delay was motivated or if the delay was intended to deceive or cheat the respondent or if any official of the appellants was inimical to the respondent. It was only a procedural delay which normally takes place in all Government offices or in the office of the Government Department/Public Bodies.
38. Moreover, if there had been any abnormal delay in the re-allotment of the plot then the respondent would have filed the complaint against the appellants for re-allotment of the plot. Similarly if the possession had been given with abnormal delay then the respondent would have filed the complaint in the learned District Forum for possession of the plot. Since the delay in re-allotment of the plot and in delivery of the possession of the re-allotted plot was normal delay which was bound to take place, therefore, the respondent had not filed the complaint against them at those stages
39. From the above discussion, therefore, we reach the conclusion that there was no abnormal delay and whatever delay was there, it was neither intentional nor motivated. It was procedural delay which was never intended to harm the respondent."
24. Moreover, if there had been intentional delay on the part of the appellants in delivery of possession, the respondent would not have consented for First Appeal No.1427 of 2004 10 allotment of alternative plot vide his application dated 02.08.1999. Similarly, he would have filed a complaint against the appellants immediately after he received letter dated 24.09.2002 for allotment of plot No.2698, Sector 69, Mohali. Rather the respondent himself wrote an application to the appellants on 07.11.2002 seeking possession of the plot knowing well that the delay in delivery of possession on the part of the appellants was procedural and not intentional. He was informed by the appellants on 30.01.2003 to take possession and he took possession of the plot on 20.02.2003. After accepting possession of the plot, the present complaint was filed by the respondent more than one year after taking possession of the plot in dispute. It was observed by this Commission in Charanjit Singh Bakshi's case as under : -
"40. The complaint was filed by the respondent against the appellants only after he was given possession of the plot in February, 2004. This conduct of the respondent, therefore, clearly reveals that basing his claim on some judgments he was trying to fish out some money from the appellants. Not some money but he wanted back the whole price of the plot paid by him along with interest and costs and wanted the plot allotted to him to be free of cost. This move of the respondent is totally misconceived."
25. Therefore, the conduct of the respondent himself reveals that there was no intentional delay on the part of the appellants. On the other hand, the fault lay with the respondent himself who failed to follow the schedule of payment as laid down in the letter of allotment and as per the version of the appellants, some amount is still outstanding against him. However, that is not the issue before this Court at the moment.
26. In Charanjit Singh Bakshi's case (supra), this Commission considered the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as "Bangalore First Appeal No.1427 of 2004 11 Development Authority v. Syndicate Bank, II (2007) CPJ 17 (SC)" and some other judgments and it was held as under : -
"43. In the present case, clause (c) would apply because alternative plot was allotted and its possession was delivered to the respondent in view of the inability of the appellants to deliver the possession of the earlier allotted plot and the delay in delivering the possession of the allotted plot was for justifiable reasons. Therefore the respondent was not entitled to any interest or compensation as he has the benefit of appreciation in value of the plot. Clause (d) of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court would also apply that the compensation for mental agony and suffering can be granted only if the statutory authority has acted negligently, arbitrarily or capriciously but as discussed above neither the appellants have acted negligently nor they have acted arbitrarily nor they have acted capriciously. If the appellants had allotted the alternative plot to the respondent not at the originally agreed price but by charging the current market rate which was higher than the original rate then the respondent would have been entitled to interest at the reasonable rate on the amount paid by the respondent on account of earlier plot.
44. The present case is clearly covered by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bangalore Development Authority's case (supra). Therefore all the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent regarding the rate of interest, different First Appeal No.1427 of 2004 12 slabs of compensation or claiming refund of the interest amount or seeking interest on the amount paid needs not be discussed in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment."
27. In view of the discussions held above, we are of the affirmed opinion that the respondent was not entitled to any compensation. If the cost of construction has gone up or if the respondent has not been able to make use the plot for his own benefit for the delayed period, the respondent has also got the benefit of getting plot at the old price. He has made the payment of few lakhs while the value of the plot has gone up in Crores of rupees. The respondent wants to eat the cake and have it too which is against the principles of justice.
28. In view of the discussions held above, this appeal is accepted and the impugned judgment dated 01.10.2004 is set aside.
29. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. 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.
30. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 15.10.2009 and the orders were reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
31. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL) PRESIDENT (LT. COL. DARSHAN SINGH-RETD.) MEMBER (PIARE LAL GARG) MEMBER October 30, 2009.
Paritosh