National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Punjab Urban Planning And Development ... vs Gian Singh [Alongwith Revision ... on 14 August, 2003
ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Member
1. Petitioner, Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority was the respondent before the District Forum where the Respondents / Complainants had filed complaints alleging deficiency in Service on the part of the Petitioner
2. Respondents / complainants are the purchaser of plots from the Original allottees. Re-allotments had the approval / concurrence of the Petitioner. Original allottees had paid 25% of the price of the plots. Respondents were to pay the remaining amount in instalments as per terms set out in the Re-allotment letters. All these letters of allotment also set out terms and conditions of allotment. The controversy is on the whole-question of delivery of possession of the plots immediately after the issue of fresh allotment letter. On the other hand, the grouse of the Petitioner is that no instalments as per the allotment letters were forthcoming. Since possession was not being delivered despite initial amount having been paid, and in one case one instalment was also paid (RP 1109/2002), three Respondents filed three separate complaints before the District Forum, who after hearing the parties dismissed the complaints. It is pertinent to not that possession was delivered on 20.1.99 (RP 1109/2002 & RP 1110/2002) and on 15.3.99 (RP 1111/2002), i.e., during the pendency of the complaints before the District Forum. On three separate appeals being filed by the Respondents / Complainants, State Commission partly allowed the appeals and directed the Petitioner to charge interest on the payable instalments only from the dates of delivery of possession, if any such interest has been paid, it shall be refunded. Aggrieved by this order, Petitioner has filed these three Revision Petitions.
3. We heard the arguments advanced by the Learned Counsel for the parties. Since the issue involved is common in all cases, we go on to dispose of these three Revision Petitions through a single common order.
4. There is no dispute that in all cases complainants are reallottees. Each of them was issued a fresh allotment letter 20.11.96 (RP 1109/2002), 14.8.96 (RP 1110/2002) and 27.11.95 / 2.1.96 (RP 1111/2002). Condition No. 9 (RP 1111/2002) and Condition No. 10 of other allotment letters in the other Revision Petitions have a common language and read as under :-
"You shall have to complete the building within 3 years from the date of issue of original allotment letter, after getting the plans of the proposed building approved in accordance with the policy framed by the Authority from time to time. In case of failure to complete the building on the site within the specified period, you shall be liable to pay the annual extension fee for the prescribed period as determined by the Authority from time to time."
5. By inference it clearly means that possession shall be given at the earliest to enable the allottees sufficient time to have the plans prepared, get it approved - which is not easy -, and complete the construction within the stipulated period. As has been narrated earlier even though fresh allotments were made in early part of 1996, yet possessions were delivered only in 1999, that too during the pendency of the complaint before the District Forum. Delay in handing over the possession is too obvious to be reiterated. It is also true that, despite having authority / provision to impose Extension fee, it has not been levied, but that does not mitigate the factum of delay in delivery of possession. It is also admitted position that the Respondents / Complainants failed to pay as per schedule of payment of instalments. We do not wish to come in the way of the Petitioner charging interest as per terms of allotment on the delay in payment in instalments by the complainants, but at the same time the Petitioner also cannot escape its responsibility of not delivering the possession soon after issue of allotment letter. They have enjoyed the money deposited by the complainants without any corresponding benefit accruing to them. They are also entitled to be compensated for deficiency by way of delay in delivery of possession on the part of the Petitioner. In similar case, as laid down by us in HUDA v. Darsh Kumar and Ors. (RP 1197 / 1998) we have awarded interest @18% p.a. on the deposited amounts to cover the interest which the complainants would have otherwise carried plus cost escalation and compensation. In our view, this is a fit case for warding the same relief. Petitioner is directed to pay interest @ 18% p.a. on the deposited amounts, from the respective dates of deposit upto the date when the possession was delivered. The amount thus payable may be adjusted against the instalments under intimation to the Complainants.
6. Orders of the State Commission are modified and all the three Petitions stands disposed off in these terms.
7. Parties to bear their own costs.