National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Punjab Urban Planning And Development ... vs Karam Singh on 23 May, 2003
Equivalent citations: III(2003)CPJ11(NC)
ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Member Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum.
1. Brief facts of the case leading to filing of complaint by the complainant Karam Singh were that he was allotted a plot No. 2569 measuring 250 sq. yards in Urban Estate SAS Nagar for a total price of Rs. 3.50 lakhs calculated at Rs. 1,400/- per sq. yard on 25.8.1995. As per terms of allotment he paid 25% of amount, i.e. Rs. 87,500/-, within the stipulated period and paid three instalments as per schedule of payments forming part of the above mentioned allotment letter. As per the Conditions 1 and 9 of the allotment letter, possession was not delivered immediately after issue of allotment letter. In 1999, petitioner found out that a Gurudwara has come up in the allotted plot -- hence this plot could not be allotted. Petitioner offered to give alternative plot in Sector 69 after getting the sanction from Chief/Additional Chief Administrator PUDA and asserting that present price of plot is Rs. 3,600/- per sq. yard, and PUDA is thoughful in not levying the current price. When possession was not given of the plot, complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner PUDA. District Forum after hearing the parties allowed the complaint and granted following reliefs :
(i) To refund the amount of interest i.e. Rs. 26,250/-, Rs. 21,875, Rs. 17,500/-as detailed in para No. 5 of the judgment above coupled with interest @ 18% p.a. from the dates of deposit till realization.
(ii) Not to charge any interest on fourth instalment due on 25.9.1999 and also on fifth instalment due on 25.8.2000 bearing the period 12.8.2000 to 25.8.2000.
On an appeal filed by the petitioner while affirming the order of the District Forum the State Commission dismissed the appeal on merits. Hence this revision petition.
We heard the parties.
2. Basic facts are not in dispute hence not being recounted. Allotment is on record. Nondelivery of possession is an admitted position. Record also reveals that allotment was made in 1995 and to meet the requirement of law as laid down in the Condition Nos. 1 and 9 of the allotment letter, possession should have been given within a reasonable time. Possession has not been given till date, as, on the allotted plot a Gurudwara has come up and that plot is obviously not available for allotment. In our view both the lower Courts went on a tangent and dealt the case only in terms of Term 1 of the allotment letter. We cannot close to the ground reality that Gurudwara has come up and it will not be easy to make available this plot to the complainant. Offer of the alternative plot was made but the response of the complainant on this offer is not on record. This Commission has dealt with the case(s) of allotment of alternative plot in view of non-availability of original plot for allotment in HUDA v. R.P. Chawla, R.P. Nos. 547 and 548 of 1997. We have no doubt in our mind that non-delivery of possession of an allotted plot within a reasonable time is a deficiency on the part of PUDA, fair whatever reason. Complainant is not concerned with that. It was for PUDA to ensure that no encroachment takes place. Following our own order in the cited case we direct PUDA to allot a plot of the same size in a developed plot in Mohali charging the same price i.e. Rs. 1,400/- per sq. yard and to pay interest @ 18% on the deposited amount from the respective dates of deposit within a period of six weeks from the date of this order. Only if it is not possible to allot a plot on account of non-availability of a vacant plot, then the complainant shall be entitled to refund of the deposited amount along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of respective deposits, The orders of District Forum as affirmed by the State Commission are modified in above terms.
In the facts and circumstances parties to bear their own costs.