National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Punjab Urban Planning And Development ... vs Rohit Kumar Aggarwal, Etc., Etc. on 4 October, 2007
Equivalent citations: II(2008)CPJ68(NC)
ORDER
K.S. Gupta, J. (Presiding Member)
1. This order will govern the disposal of revision petition Nos. 3 to 31 of 2006 which arise out of a common order dated 10.12.2005 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab, Chandigarh disposing of 29 appeals filed by the petitioner/OP Authority and 13 cross-appeals preferred by some of the complainants.
2. Only few facts need be noticed for deciding this batch of revision petitions. Complaints individually filed by the respondents on contest by the petitioner authority were decided by the District Forum with the reliefs as extracted on internal pages 5 and 6 of the order of the State Commission:
1. The basic amenities were completed by PUDA on 12.6.2002 and also the zoning of the area was approved by a plan on that date. Consequently, the District Forum held that qua those persons who were allotted plots and even might have been delivered possession, their period for construction of three years would start from 12.6.2002.
2. It was further held that PUDA was not entitled to charge any interest on the instalments which were due prior to 12.6.2002 and that the amount of interest which might have been charged on instalments should also be refunded with 18% interest from the date of deposit till 12.6.2002.
3. It was further held by the District Forum that all the complaints will be entitled to compensation of Rs. 20,000 on account of escalation of prices. This amount was also ordered to be paid with 18% interest (there is one exception in the case of Shivani Sharma who was allowed Rs. 5,000 as compensation).
4. While granting relief, the District Forum had also observed in the relief clause as follows:
not to charge any type of penal interest either on instalments or for not raising construction and reframe the payment of instalments after sanctioning of zoning plan after 12.6.2002.
3. Letter dated 5.10.2004 sent by the petitioner Authority to the Additional Chief Administrator, PUDA, Jalandhar, notices the policy decision taken by the Authority that it had decided that 3 years moratorium period for the purpose of construction on the residential plots may be taken w.e.f. 12.6.2002, the date on which zoning of the area was approved and development works completed. Another letter dated 31.5.2005 notices yet another policy decision taken by the petitioner Authority that interest on the instalments which fell due till June, 2002 may not be charged from the allottees of 717 residential plots at Urban Estate, Kapurthala Scheme in terms of condition 5 of the brochure/scheme because the development works had not been completed till this date. Taking note of the policy decisions conveyed through both these letters, the State Commission while partially allowing appeals filed by the petitioner Authority reduced the rate of interest payable to the complainant/respondents from 18% p.a. as awarded by the District Forum to 10% p.a. and two months time was allowed to the petitioner Authority to pay amount of compensation of Rs. 20,000 on account of escalation in price failing which the Authority has to pay interest thereon @ 10% p.a. after two months period to the complainant/respondents.
4. Mrs. Racha Joshi Issar for the petitioner Authority challenged the order of State Commission only insofar as it related to the payment of interest on interest and interest on compensation. Copy of the allotment letter in respect of Mohit Kumar Aggarwal respondent/complainant in one of the cases dated 29.12.2000 is at pages 35 to 38. Similar allotment letters are stated to havebeen sent to the other respondent/complainant. In terms of Clause 3 of the said allotment letter amount of Rs. 1,48,000 was to be remitted within 60 days from the date of issue of letter which together with amount of Rs. 37,000 paid along with application form as earnest money, was to constitute 25% of the total tentative price of Rs. 7,40,000 calculated @ Rs. 1,850 per sq. yd. In terms of Clause 5, the balance amount was to be paid in lump sum without interest within 60 days from the date of issue of letter or in six half-yearly instalments @ 15% p.a. and the first instalment was to become due after one year from the date of allotment. In Clause 6 the details of the due dates of six half-yearly instalments; amount of instalments, interest and total amount payable were given. First two instalments were payable by 12.6.2002. Component of interest paid to the petitioner Authority by this date was to be refunded in terms of the order of District Forum as also affirmed in the said letter dated 31.5.2005.
5. In its order, the State Commission has stated that as the amount of interest to be refunded had been utilized by the Authority, the respondent/complainants are entitled to interest thereon. Liability to pay interest arose as there was default/omission on the part of petitioner Authority in not completing the development works and not getting the zoning of the area approved before 12.6.2002. We are in agreement with the said view of the State Commission and the petitioner Authority, thus, cannot evade payment of interest on the amount of interest to be refunded.
6. Coming to the award of interest on compensation, at the cost of repetition, it may be stated that petitioner Authority has been allowed two months reasonable time to pay the compensation. Authority could have avoided payment of interest by making payment of compensation amount within said time allowed. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the order awarding interest @ 10% p.a. on compensation amount if the payment was not made within the above period. Thus, repelling the submission referred to above, the order passed by the State Commission has to be affirmed on both the counts.
7. Accordingly, aforementioned revisions are dismissed. No order as to cost.