State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Punjab Urban Planning And Development ... vs Shah Behari on 18 December, 2017
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.432 of 2017
Date of Institution : 12.06.2017
Order Reserved on: 14.12.2017
Date of Decision : 18.12.2017
Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority (now BDA), PUDA
Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda, Tehsil and District Bathinda
through its Estate Officer.
.....Appellant/opposite party
Versus
Shah Behari S/o Gopal Behari S/o Kunj Lal, Resident of Cahuri
Street, Ward No.9, Budhlada, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa.
.....Respondent/complainant
First Appeal against order dated
10.03.2017 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Mansa.
Quorum:-
Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member
Smt. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Balwinder Singh, Advocate For the respondent : Ex-parte ............................................2) First Appeal No.433 of 2017
Date of Institution : 12.06.2017 Order Reserved on: 14.12.2017 Date of Decision : 18.12.2017 Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority (now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda, Tehsil and District Bathinda through its Estate Officer.
.....Appellant/opposite party Versus Sudesh Rani w/o Naval Behari s/o Kunj Lal, Resident of Cahuri Street, Ward no.9, Budhlada, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa.
.....Respondent/complainant First Appeal against order dated 10.03.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mansa.
Quorum:-
First Appeal No.432 of 2017 2
Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member Smt. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Balwinder Singh, Advocate For the respondent : Ex-parte ............................................3) First Appeal No.435 of 2017
Date of Institution : 12.06.2017 Order Reserved on: 14.12.2017 Date of Decision : 18.12.2017 Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority (now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda, Tehsil and District Bathinda through its Estate Officer.
.....Appellant/opposite party Versus Ritu Singla S/o Vikas Kumar S/o Parshotam Dass, resident of Madan Advocate Street, Ward no.13, Budhlada, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa.
.....Respondent/complainant First Appeal against order dated 10.03.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mansa.
Quorum:-
Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member Smt. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Balwinder Singh, Advocate For the respondent : Ex-parte ............................................4) First Appeal No.436 of 2017
Date of Institution : 12.06.2017 Order Reserved on: 14.12.2017 Date of Decision : 18.12.2017 Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority (now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda, Tehsil and District Bathinda through its Estate Officer.
.....Appellant/opposite party Versus Bhawal Jain S/o Hem Raj S/o Mangat Ram C/o Baru Mall Mangat Ram Commission Agent, Shop No.177, Bareta, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa.
.....Respondent/complainant First Appeal against order dated 10.03.2017 passed by the District First Appeal No.432 of 2017 3 Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mansa.
Quorum:-
Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member Smt. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Balwinder Singh, Advocate For the respondent : Ex-parte ............................................5) First Appeal No.438 of 2017
Date of Institution : 12.06.2017 Order Reserved on: 14.12.2017 Date of Decision : 18.12.2017 Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority (now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda, Tehsil and District Bathinda through its Estate Officer.
.....Appellant/opposite party Versus Subhash Chand S/o Sony Ram, Resident of Kabir Colony, Hospital Road, Budhlada, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa.
.....Respondent/complainant First Appeal against order dated 10.03.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mansa.
Quorum:-
Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member Smt. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Balwinder Singh, Advocate For the respondent : Ex-parte ............................................6) First Appeal No.439 of 2017
Date of Institution : 12.06.2017 Order Reserved on: 14.12.2017 Date of Decision : 18.12.2017 Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority (now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda, Tehsil and District Bathinda through its Estate Officer.
.....Appellant/opposite party Versus Urmila Rani W/o Darshan Kumar resident of House No.173, Ward NO.6, Geeta Bhawan, Maur Mandi, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda.
.....Respondent/complainant First Appeal No.432 of 2017 4 First Appeal against order dated 10.03.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mansa.
Quorum:-
Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member Smt. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Balwinder Singh, Advocate For the respondent : Sh. Anil Malik, Advocate ............................................7) First Appeal No.441 of 2017
Date of Institution : 12.06.2017 Order Reserved on: 14.12.2017 Date of Decision : 18.12.2017 Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority (now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda, Tehsil and District Bathinda through its Estate Officer.
.....Appellant/opposite party Versus Sunny Kumar S/o Inderjit Singh S/o Sham Singh, resident of Near Hazi Wala Karkhana, Budhlada, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa.
.....Respondent/complainant First Appeal against order dated 17.03.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mansa.
Quorum:-
Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member Smt. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Balwinder Singh, Advocate For the respondent : Sh. Gaurav Gupta, Advocate ............................................8) First Appeal No.442 of 2017
Date of Institution : 12.06.2017 Order Reserved on: 14.12.2017 Date of Decision : 18.12.2017 Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority (now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda, Tehsil and District Bathinda through its Estate Officer.
.....Appellant/opposite party Versus Sadhu Singh S/o Mohinder Singh, resident of near College, Plot Basti, Budhlada, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa.First Appeal No.432 of 2017 5
.....Respondent/complainant First Appeal against order dated 17.03.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mansa.
Quorum:-
Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member Smt. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Balwinder Singh, Advocate For the respondent : Sh. Gaurav Gupta, Advocate ............................................9) First Appeal No.443 of 2017
Date of Institution : 12.06.2017 Order Reserved on: 14.12.2017 Date of Decision : 18.12.2017 Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority (now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda, Tehsil and District Bathinda through its Estate Officer.
.....Appellant/opposite party Versus Sukhdev Singh S/o Arjun Singh, resident of V&PO Datewas, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa.
.....Respondent/complainant First Appeal against order dated 17.03.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mansa.
Quorum:-
Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member Smt. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Balwinder Singh, Advocate For the respondent : Sh. Gaurav Gupta, Advocate ............................................
10) First Appeal No.445 of 2017 Date of Institution : 12.06.2017 Order Reserved on: 14.12.2017 Date of Decision : 18.12.2017 Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority (now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda, Tehsil and District Bathinda through its Estate Officer.
.....Appellant/opposite party Versus First Appeal No.432 of 2017 6 Sohan Lal S/o Dhani Ram, C/o Shop No.25, Grain Market, Budhlada, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa.
.....Respondent/complainant First Appeal against order dated 17.03.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mansa.
Quorum:-
Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member Smt. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Balwinder Singh, Advocate For the respondent : Ex-parte ............................................
11) First Appeal No.446 of 2017 Date of Institution : 12.06.2017 Order Reserved on: 14.12.2017 Date of Decision : 18.12.2017 Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority (now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda, Tehsil and District Bathinda through its Estate Officer.
.....Appellant/opposite party Versus Kuldeep Kumar Singla S/o Parkash Chand, resident of ward no.6, Chauri Gali, Budhlada, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa.
.....Respondent/complainant First Appeal against order dated 17.03.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mansa.
Quorum:-
Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member Smt. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Balwinder Singh, Advocate For the respondent : Ex-parte ............................................
12) First Appeal No.449 of 2017 Date of Institution : 12.06.2017 Order Reserved on: 14.12.2017 Date of Decision : 18.12.2017 Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority (now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda, Tehsil and District Bathinda through its Estate Officer.
.....Appellant/opposite party First Appeal No.432 of 2017 7 Versus Vijay Sandliya S/o Piare Lal, resident of House no.16, Sector 16, Panchkula, Haryana.
.....Respondent/complainant First Appeal against order dated 10.03.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mansa.
Quorum:-
Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member Smt. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Balwinder Singh, Advocate For the respondent : Sh. Vansh Malhotra, Advocate ............................................
13) First Appeal No.451 of 2017 Date of Institution : 12.06.2017 Order Reserved on: 14.12.2017 Date of Decision : 18.12.2017 Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority (now BDA), PUDA Complex, Bhagu Road, Bathinda, Tehsil and District Bathinda through its Estate Officer.
.....Appellant/opposite party Versus Hardev Singh S/o Karam Singh, resident of H.No.763, Village Bachhoana, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa.
.....Respondent/complainant First Appeal against order dated 10.03.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mansa.
Quorum:-
Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member Smt. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Balwinder Singh, Advocate For the respondent : Ex-parte ............................................
AND
14) First Appeal No.456 of 2017 Date of Institution : 12.06.2017 Order Reserved on: 14.12.2017 Date of Decision : 18.12.2017 Bathinda Development Authority, Bathinda through its Estate Officer.
.....Appellant/opposite party First Appeal No.432 of 2017 8 Versus Pooja Rani aged about 26 years D/o Sh. Hans Raj C/o Raj Filling Station, Fallian Wala, Tehsil Jalalabad, District Fazilka.
.....Respondent/complainant First Appeal against order dated 20.01.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda.
Quorum:-
Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member Smt. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Balwinder Singh, Advocate For the respondent : Sh. Vivek Chuhan, Advocate ............................................ J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-
Since common controversies are involved in the above referred appeals, hence, they are being disposed of together by means of this common order. The order shall be pronounced by us in main First appeal no.432 of 2017 titled as "PUDA Bathinda Vs. Shah Behari". The above referred first appeals have been filed by Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority (now BDA) Bathinda (opposite party in the complaints) against orders of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Mansa (in short the 'District Forum'), accepting the complaints of respondents of above referred appeals (complainants in the complaints) by directing appellant to refund the amount received by them from the respondents of above referred appeals alongwiht interest @9% per annum from the date of receipt till date of payment. The Dirstrict Forum further directed appellant in above referred cases to pay Rs.7000/- as compensation and Rs.3000/- as litigations expenses to respondents of above referred appeals. Respondents of above referred appeals are First Appeal No.432 of 2017 9 complainants in the complaints before the District Forum and Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority (now BDA) Bathinda appellant is opposite party (OP) therein and they be referred as such herein after for the sake of convenience.
First Appeal no.432 of 2017 :
2. The facts are taken from complaint no.134 of 2016, which has been instituted by complainant U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against OP, giving rise to first appeal no.432 of 2017, on the averments that OP launched a scheme on 27.09.2012 for allotting freehold residential plots at PUDA Enclave Budhlada. Applications were invited alongwith 10% earnest money of the total amount from the general public. It was further averred that complainant applied for 500 sq.yard plot, through application No.4872 by depositing Rs.3,00,000/-, as earnest money.
The draw of lots was held on 15.01.2013 at Budhlada by OP, wherein he remained successful. Letter of Intent dated 26.02.2013 has been issued to him by OP. He paid next 15% of total amount through demand draft of Rs.4,50,000/- to OP, as per the terms of the scheme. It was further averred that the possession of the plot was to be handed over to him by OP after completion of development works at site or within 18 months from the date of issuance of allotment letter, whichever is earlier, but till date, no development of above area has been made by the OP, as per terms of the scheme. He and other plot holders requested OP to handover the possessions of plots to them after completing the development work at the site First Appeal No.432 of 2017 10 without any delay, but it did not pay any heed to their genuine requests. Due to this, he suffered physical harassment, mental agony and humiliation. The complainant alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP by not delivering the possession of the plot to him and by not developing the above area. He prayed that OP be directed to return the amount paid by him i.e. Rs.7,50,000/- alongwith 18% interest, as it failed to handover the possession of the plot within the specified period; and further to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental harassment.
3. Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant vehemently by averring that complainant purchased the plot for commercial purposes only. Clause No.12 of the letter of intent reads that "the possession of plot shall be handed over to the allottee after completion of development work at site or within 18 months from the date of allotment letter, whichever is earlier". The letter of intent is not allotment letter and there is no mention of any date about the delivery of possession of the plot to allottee. It was further averred that development works at the site are in progress. The complainant has concealed the material facts from the Forum. The complainant interpreted Condition No.12 of letter of intent wrongly. It was further averred that the complainant knew all the facts about the site. This fact was admitted by OP that draw of lots was held on 15.01.2013 and at that time, the rate of the property was very high and everyone wanted to make profit by investing in property. But after 2013, the rates of properties slumped First Appeal No.432 of 2017 11 down and complainant just to save himself from that monetary loss, filed the instant complaint. As per Condition No.22 of the letter of intent, if the allottee/complainant did not want to comply with the conditions of letter of intent or was not satisfied, then he can write letter to this effect to OP within 30 days time from the date of letter of intent and could get back his earnest money, but he failed to do so. He further deposited 15% of the amount of the plot. As per Condition No.15 of the letter of intent, "the letter of intent shall be transferable after receipt of 25% of total price of the plot, by way of sale, Gift or otherwise with the prior permission of the Estate Office, PUDA Bathinda subject to the payment of 2.5% of the total price of the plot as transfer fee and Rs.2,500/- as process fee." On that basis, many allottees sold their plots after getting permission from OP for transfer. The complainant filed compliant just to get benefit from the OP and to save himself from monetary loss. The OP denied the other averments of the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The complainant tendered in evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-4 and closed the evidence. As against it, OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh.Gurjant Singh, EO, PUDA, Bathinda Ex.OP-1, copy of proforma Ex.OP-2 and closed the evidence. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum accepted the complaint of the complainant, as referred to above. Aggrieved by above order, OP now appellant has directed this appeal against the same. First Appeal No.432 of 2017 12 First Appeal no.433 of 2017 :
5. The facts are taken from complaint no.135 of 2016, which has been instituted by complainant Sudesh Rani U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against OP, giving rise to this appeal no.433 of 2017, on the averments that OP launched a scheme on 27.09.2012 for allotting freehold residential plots at PUDA Enclave Budhlada. She applied for 400 sq.yard plot, through application No.3048 by depositing Rs.2,40,000/-, as 10% earnest money. She remained successful in the draw of lots, which was held on 15.01.2013. Letter of Intent dated 26.02.2013 was issued to her by OP. She further paid 15% of total amount, through demand draft of Rs.3,60,000/- to OP. The possession of the plot was to be handed over to her by OP after completion of development works at site or within 18 months from the date of issuance of allotment letter, whichever is earlier, but till date no development of above area has been made by OP not it delivered the possession of the plot to her, despite requests. She alleged deficiency in service on the part of OPs. She prayed that OP be directed to return the amount paid by her i.e. Rs.6,00,000/- alongwith 18% interest as it failed to handover the possession of the plot within specified period; and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental harassment.
6. Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written reply on the similar defences and averments, as pleaded in detail in complaint no.134 of 2016, as above, and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. First Appeal No.432 of 2017 13
7. Both the parties tendered their respective evidence in support of their version. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum accepted the complaint of the complainant. Aggrieved by above order, OP now appellant has directed this appeal against the same.
First Appeal no.435 of 2017 :
8. The facts are taken from complaint no.137 of 2016, which has been instituted by complainant Ritu Singla U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against OP, giving rise to first appeal no.435 of 2017, on the averments that OP launched a scheme on 27.09.2012 for allotting freehold residential plots at PUDA Enclave Budhlada. She applied for a plot, through application No.0351 by depositing Rs.3,00,000/-, as 10% earnest money. She remained successful in the draw of lots, which was held on 15.01.2013. Letter of Intent dated 26.02.2013 was issued to her by OP. She further paid 15% of total amount, through demand draft of Rs.4,50,000/- to OP. The possession of the plot was to be handed over to her by OP after completion of development works at site or within 18 months from the date of issuance of allotment letter, whichever is earlier, but till date no development of above area has been made by OP not it delivered the possession of the plot to her, despite requests. She alleged deficiency in service on the part of OPs. She prayed that OP be directed to return the amount paid by her i.e. Rs.7,50,000/- alongwith 18% interest, as it failed to handover First Appeal No.432 of 2017 14 the possession of the plot within specified period; and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental harassment.
9. Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written reply on the similar defences and averments, as pleaded in detail in complaint no.134 of 2016 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
10. Both the parties tendered their respective evidence in support of their version. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum accepted the complaint of the complainant. Aggrieved by above order, OP now appellant has directed this appeal against the same.
First Appeal no.436 of 2017 :
11. The facts are taken from complaint no.138 of 2016, which has been instituted by complainant Bhawal Jain U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against OP, giving rise to first appeal no.436 of 2017, on the averments that OP launched a scheme on 27.09.2012 for allotting freehold residential plots at PUDA Enclave Budhlada. He applied for 500 square yards plot, through application No.4148 by depositing Rs.3,00,000/-, as 10% earnest money. He remained successful in the draw of lots, which was held on 15.01.2013. Letter of Intent dated 26.02.2013 was issued to him by OP. He further paid 15% of total amount, through demand draft of Rs.4,50,000/- to OP. The possession of the plot was to be handed over to him by OP after completion of development works at site or within 18 months from the date of issuance of allotment letter, whichever is earlier, but till date, no First Appeal No.432 of 2017 15 development of above area has been made by OP nor it delivered the possession of the plot to him, despite requests. He alleged deficiency in service on the part of OPs. He prayed that OP be directed to return the amount paid by him i.e. Rs.7,50,000/- alongwith 18% interest, as it failed to handover the possession of the plot within specified period; and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental harassment.
12. Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written reply on the similar defences and averments, as pleaded in detail in complaint no.134 of 2016 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
13. Both the parties tendered their respective evidence in support of their version. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum accepted the complaint of the complainant. Aggrieved by above order, OP now appellant has directed this appeal against the same.
First Appeal no.438 of 2017 :
14. The facts are taken from complaint no.145 of 2016, which has been instituted by complainant Subhash Chand U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against OP, giving rise to first appeal no.438 of 2017, on the averments that OP launched a scheme on 27.09.2012 for allotting freehold residential plots at PUDA Enclave Budhlada. He applied for 500 square yards plot, through application No.4847 by depositing Rs.3,00,000/-, as 10% earnest money. He remained successful in the draw of lots, which was held on 15.01.2013. Letter of Intent dated 26.02.2013 First Appeal No.432 of 2017 16 was issued to him by OP. He further paid 15% of total amount, through demand draft of Rs.4,50,000/- to OP. The possession of the plot was to be handed over to him by OP after completion of development works at site or within 18 months from the date of issuance of allotment letter, whichever is earlier, but till date, no development of above area has been made by OP nor it delivered the possession of the plot to him, despite requests. He alleged deficiency in service on the part of OPs. He prayed that OP be directed to return the amount paid by him i.e. Rs.7,50,000/- alongwith 18% interest, as it failed to handover the possession of the plot within specified period; and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental harassment.
15. Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written reply on the similar defences and averments, as pleaded in detail in complaint no.134 of 2016 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
16. Both the parties tendered their respective evidence in support of their version. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum accepted the complaint of the complainant. Aggrieved by above order, OP now appellant has directed this appeal against the same.
First Appeal no.439 of 2017 :
17. The facts are taken from complaint no.147 of 2016, which has been instituted by complainant Urmila Rani U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against OP, giving rise to first appeal no.439 of 2017, on the averments that OP First Appeal No.432 of 2017 17 launched a scheme on 27.09.2012 for allotting freehold residential plots at PUDA Enclave Budhlada. She applied for 400 square yards plot, through application No.2031 by depositing Rs.2,40,000/-, as 10% earnest money. She remained successful in the draw of lots, which was held on 15.01.2013. Letter of Intent dated 26.02.2013 was issued to her by OP. She further paid 15% of total amount, through demand draft of Rs.4,50,000/- to OP. The possession of the plot was to be handed over to her by OP after completion of development works at site or within 18 months from the date of issuance of allotment letter, whichever is earlier, but till date no development of above area has been made by OP nor it delivered the possession of the plot to her, despite requests. She alleged deficiency in service on the part of OPs. She prayed that OP be directed to return the amount paid by her i.e. Rs.7,50,000/- alongwith 18% interest, as it failed to handover the possession of the plot within specified period; and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental harassment.
18. Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written reply on the similar defences and averments, as pleaded in detail in complaint no.134 of 2016 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
19. Both the parties tendered their respective evidence in support of their version. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum accepted the complaint of the complainant. Aggrieved by above order, OP now appellant has directed this appeal against the same.
First Appeal No.432 of 2017 18First Appeal no.441 of 2017 :
20. The facts are taken from complaint no.151 of 2016, which has been instituted by complainant Sunny Kumar U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against OP, giving rise to first appeal no.441 of 2017, on the averments that OP launched a scheme on 27.09.2012 for allotting freehold residential plots at PUDA Enclave Budhlada. He applied for 500 square yards plot, through application No.3440 by depositing Rs.3,00,000/-, as 10% earnest money. He remained successful in the draw of lots, which was held on 15.01.2013. Letter of Intent dated 26.02.2013 was issued to him by OP. He further paid 15% of total amount, through demand draft of Rs.4,50,000/- to OP. The possession of the plot was to be handed over to him by OP after completion of development works at site or within 18 months from the date of issuance of allotment letter, whichever is earlier, but till date, no development of above area has been made by OP nor it delivered the possession of the plot to him, despite requests. He alleged deficiency in service on the part of OPs. He prayed that OP be directed to return the amount paid by him i.e. Rs.7,50,000/- alongwith 18% interest, as it failed to handover the possession of the plot within specified period; and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental harassment.
21. Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written reply on the similar defences and averments, as pleaded in detail in complaint no.134 of 2016 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. First Appeal No.432 of 2017 19
22. Both the parties tendered their respective evidence in support of their version. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum accepted the complaint of the complainant. Aggrieved by above order, OP now appellant has directed this appeal against the same.
First Appeal no.442 of 2017 :
23. The facts are taken from complaint no.155 of 2016, which has been instituted by complainant Sadhu Singh U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against OP, giving rise to first appeal no.442 of 2017, on the averments that OP launched a scheme on 27.09.2012 for allotting freehold residential plots at PUDA Enclave Budhlada. He applied for 400 square yards plot, through application by depositing Rs.2,40,000/-, as 10% earnest money. He remained successful in the draw of lots, which was held on 15.01.2013. Letter of Intent dated 26.02.2013 was issued to him by OP. He further paid 15% of total amount, through demand draft of Rs.3,60,000/- to OP. The possession of the plot was to be handed over to him by OP after completion of development works at site or within 18 months from the date of issuance of allotment letter, whichever is earlier, but till date, no development of above area has been made by OP nor it delivered the possession of the plot to him, despite requests. He alleged deficiency in service on the part of OPs. He prayed that OP be directed to return the amount paid by him i.e. Rs.6,00,000/- alongwith 18% interest, as it failed to First Appeal No.432 of 2017 20 handover the possession of the plot within specified period; and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental harassment.
24. Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written reply on the similar defences and averments, as pleaded in detail in complaint no.134 of 2016 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
25. Both the parties tendered their respective evidence in support of their version. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum accepted the complaint of the complainant. Aggrieved by above order, OP now appellant has directed this appeal against the same.
First Appeal no.443 of 2017 :
26. The facts are taken from complaint no.156 of 2016, which has been instituted by complainant Sukhdev Singh U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against OP, giving rise to first appeal no.443 of 2017, on the averments that OP launched a scheme on 27.09.2012 for allotting freehold residential plots at PUDA Enclave Budhlada. He applied for 400 square yards plot, through application no.0778 by depositing Rs.2,40,000/-, as 10% earnest money. He remained successful in the draw of lots, which was held on 15.01.2013. Letter of Intent dated 26.02.2013 was issued to him by OP. He further paid 15% of total amount, through demand draft of Rs.3,60,000/- to OP. The possession of the plot was to be handed over to him by OP after completion of development works at site or within 18 months from the date of issuance of allotment letter, whichever is earlier, but till date, no First Appeal No.432 of 2017 21 development of above area has been made by OP nor it delivered the possession of the plot to him, despite requests. He alleged deficiency in service on the part of OPs. He prayed that OP be directed to return the amount paid by him i.e. Rs.6,00,000/- alongwith 18% interest, as it failed to handover the possession of the plot within specified period; and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental harassment.
27. Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written reply on the similar defences and averments, as pleaded in detail in complaint no.134 of 2016 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
28. Both the parties tendered their respective evidence in support of their version. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum accepted the complaint of the complainant. Aggrieved by above order, OP now appellant has directed this appeal against the same.
First Appeal no.445 of 2017 :
29. The facts are taken from complaint no.160 of 2016, which has been instituted by complainant Sohan Lal U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against OP, giving rise to first appeal no.445 of 2017, on the averments that OP launched a scheme on 27.09.2012 for allotting freehold residential plots at PUDA Enclave Budhlada. He applied for 500 square yards plot, through application no.3029 by depositing Rs.3,00,000/-, as 10% earnest money. He remained successful in the draw of lots, which was held on 15.01.2013. Letter of Intent dated 26.02.2013 First Appeal No.432 of 2017 22 was issued to him by OP. He further paid 15% of total amount, through demand draft of Rs.4,50,000/- to OP. The possession of the plot was to be handed over to him by OP after completion of development works at site or within 18 months from the date of issuance of allotment letter, whichever is earlier, but till date, no development of above area has been made by OP nor it delivered the possession of the plot to him, despite requests. He alleged deficiency in service on the part of OPs. He prayed that OP be directed to return the amount paid by him i.e. Rs.7,50,000/- alongwith 18% interest, as it failed to handover the possession of the plot within specified period; and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental harassment.
30. Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written reply on the similar defences and averments, as pleaded in detail in complaint no.134 of 2016 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
31. Both the parties tendered their respective evidence in support of their version. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum accepted the complaint of the complainant. Aggrieved by above order, OP now appellant has directed this appeal against the same.
First Appeal no.446 of 2017 :
32. The facts are taken from complaint no.161 of 2016, which has been instituted by complainant Kuldeep Kumar Singla U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against OP, giving rise to first appeal no.446 of 2017, on the averments that First Appeal No.432 of 2017 23 OP launched a scheme on 27.09.2012 for allotting freehold residential plots at PUDA Enclave Budhlada. He applied for 500 square yards plot, through application no.6689 by depositing Rs.3,00,000/-, as 10% earnest money. He remained successful in the draw of lots, which was held on 15.01.2013. Letter of Intent dated 26.02.2013 was issued to him by OP. He further paid 15% of total amount, through demand draft of Rs.4,50,000/- to OP. The possession of the plot was to be handed over to him by OP after completion of development works at site or within 18 months from the date of issuance of allotment letter, whichever is earlier, but till date, no development of above area has been made by OP nor it delivered the possession of the plot to him, despite requests. He alleged deficiency in service on the part of OPs. He prayed that OP be directed to return the amount paid by him i.e. Rs.7,50,000/- alongwith 18% interest, as it failed to handover the possession of the plot within specified period; and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental harassment.
33. Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written reply on the similar defences and averments, as pleaded in detail in complaint no.134 of 2016 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
34. Both the parties tendered their respective evidence in support of their version. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum accepted the complaint of the complainant. Aggrieved by above order, OP now appellant has directed this appeal against the same.
First Appeal No.432 of 2017 24First Appeal no.449 of 2017 :
35. The facts are taken from complaint no.174 of 2016, which has been instituted by complainant Vijay Sandilya U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against OP, giving rise to first appeal no.449 of 2017, on the averments that OP launched a scheme on 27.09.2012 for allotting freehold residential plots at PUDA Enclave Budhlada. He applied for 400 square yards plot, through application no.3136 by depositing Rs.2,40,000/-, as 10% earnest money. He remained successful in the draw of lots, which was held on 15.01.2013. Letter of Intent dated 26.02.2013 was issued to him by OP. He further paid 15% of total amount, through demand draft of Rs.3,60,000/- to OP. The possession of the plot was to be handed over to him by OP after completion of development works at site or within 18 months from the date of issuance of allotment letter, whichever is earlier, but till date, no development of above area has been made by OP nor it delivered the possession of the plot to him, despite requests. He alleged deficiency in service on the part of OPs. He prayed that OP be directed to return the amount paid by him i.e. Rs.6,00,000/- alongwith 18% interest, as it failed to handover the possession of the plot within specified period; and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental harassment.
36. Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written reply on the similar defences and averments, as pleaded in detail in complaint no.134 of 2016 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. First Appeal No.432 of 2017 25
37. Both the parties tendered their respective evidence in support of their version. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum accepted the complaint of the complainant. Aggrieved by above order, OP now appellant has directed this appeal against the same.
First Appeal no.451 of 2017 :
38. The facts are taken from complaint no.176 of 2016, which has been instituted by complainant Hardev Singh U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against OP, giving rise to first appeal no.451 of 2017, on the averments that OP launched a scheme on 27.09.2012 for allotting freehold residential plots at PUDA Enclave Budhlada. He applied for 400 square yards plot, through application no.1526 by depositing Rs.2,40,000/-, as 10% earnest money. He remained successful in the draw of lots, which was held on 15.01.2013. Letter of Intent dated 12.04.2013 was issued to him by OP. He further paid 15% of total amount, through demand draft of Rs.3,60,000/- to OP. The possession of the plot was to be handed over to him by OP after completion of development works at site or within 18 months from the date of issuance of allotment letter, whichever is earlier, but till date, no development of above area has been made by OP nor it delivered the possession of the plot to him, despite requests. He alleged deficiency in service on the part of OPs. He prayed that OP be directed to return the amount paid by him i.e. Rs.6,00,000/- alongwith 18% interest, as it failed to handover the possession of the First Appeal No.432 of 2017 26 plot within specified period; and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental harassment.
39. Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written reply on the similar defences and averments, as pleaded in detail in complaint no.134 of 2016 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
40. Both the parties tendered their respective evidence in support of their version. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum accepted the complaint of the complainant. Aggrieved by above order, OP now appellant has directed this appeal against the same.
First Appeal no.456 of 2017 :
41. The facts are taken from complaint no.323 of 2016, which has been filed by complainant Pooja Rani U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") before District Forum Bathinda against OP, giving rise to first appeal no.456 of 2017, on the averments that OP invited applications for allotment freehold residential plots in phase IV and V of Bathinda Development Authority. She applied for 400 square yards plot by depositing 10% of total amount, as application money. She remained successful in the draw of lots, which was held on 18.03.2011 and plot no.295-C (corner plot) allotted to her by OP at Bathinda, vide allotment no.EO/BDA/2690 dated 16.06.2011. As per terms and conditions, the value of corner plot was to be increased by 5% of its normal value. After going through the sketch site plan, she came to know that dimensions of the allotted plot were not equal and the plot was First Appeal No.432 of 2017 27 not in a standard shape, as she applied for plot with dimensions 40' x 90', whereas she was allotted a plot having dimensions 29' x 54.5'. She wrote application to OP for changing the same with one proper and stadard one plot, but it refused to change the same. She further paid 15% of total amount under compelling circumstances. Thereafter, she wrote letters dated 21.05.2012, 30.10.2012 and 10.12.2012. Vide letter no.6942 dated 19.07.2013 OP sought written consent to change the allotted plot with plot no.302. She was allotted another plot no.302 with old schdule of payment. She alleged deficiency in service on the part of OPs. She prayed that OP be directed to issue a fresh schedule of installment for plot no.302 alongwith litigation cost of Rs.11,000/- or alternatively directed OP to refund the deposited money with interest @12%; and to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation.
42. Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written reply by raising legal objections that complainant is not consumer, as defined u/s 2 (i)(d) of the C.P. Act. The complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the complaint. The complaint is not maintainable. This Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint u/s 174 of PUDA Act. The complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and has concealed material and true facts. Intricate questions of facts and law are involved in this case, which cannot be decided in summary procedure by Consumer Fora. The complainant is estopped to file the complaint by her act, conduct and acquiescence. The complaint is alleged to be false, frivolous and First Appeal No.432 of 2017 28 vexatious. The complaint was contested by OP even on merits. It was admitted that draw of lots was held on 18-03-2011 and plot No. 295-C measuring 412 square yard, in SC/ST category at Urban Estate, Phase 4 & 5 (BDA Enclave) Bathinda was allotted to her on the basis of terms and conditions of letter of Intent no.2690 dated 06-06-2011. The complainant was bound by terms and conditions of the letter of intent. She moved application to OP for extension of time to deposit 15% amount of plot on 21-06-2011, but regarding odd dimensions of plot was not brought to its knowledge by complainant. OP extended time of 30 days to deposit 15% amount of plot vide letter dated 01-07-2011. Thereafter complainant deposited 15% amount of plot, vide her application dated 05-08-2011. It was admitted that complainant moved application for change of plot on 21-06-2011 and OP replied vide letter dated 02-11-2011 that she failed to deposit the due installments in time. It was further averred that notice under Section 45(1) of PUDA Act was issued to her vide letters dated 03-04-2012 and 12-07-2012. She violated the terms and conditions of letter of intent for allotment. On her written request and after decision in the meeting of Regional Planning and Design Committee on 09-05-2013, plot No. 295-C was changed with Plot No.302 with written consent of complainant dated 13-08-2013 and letter dated 02-07-2014 was issued to her in this regard. Letter dated 02-07-2014 was issued to her for change of plot and demanding due installments with interest and also informing her for re-scheduling of installments. OP declined her request for new schedule of First Appeal No.432 of 2017 29 installments, as per law and informed her about it, vide letter dated 17-12-2014. The complainant is bound by terms and conditions of letter of intent for allotment. It was denied that there is any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on its part. She failed to deposit due installments. OP issued notice under Section 45 of PUDA Act. OP denied the other averments of complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
43. Both the parties tendered their respective evidence in support of their version. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum accepted the complaint of the complainant. Aggrieved by above order, OP now appellant has directed this appeal against the same.
Main Order:
44. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the record of the case. The complainants now respondents are exparte in some of the above appeals. The counsel for the appellants raised forceful submission in these appeals before us, that the District Forum assumed the pecuniary jurisdiction erroneously in above cases, despite the fact that the value of the goods or services hired or availed as involved in all above cases is of more than Rs.20,00,000/-. The orders of the District Forum have been assailed by counsel for the appellants forcefully in these appeals before us, being without any pecuniary jurisdiction of the Forum. We have bestowed our careful attention on the submission of counsel for the appellant in above referred appeals and have also First Appeal No.432 of 2017 30 perused the pleadings and evidence on the record. Admiteddly, the complainants booked plots with OP at the rate of Rs.600/- per square yard. The value of the goods in all above appeals is admittedly in excess of Rs.20,00,000/-. The contention of counsel for the appellants is that the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum is confined to Rs.20,00,000/- only under Section 11 (1) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, whereas the value of the good or services hired and compensation, if any, claimed exceeded Rs.20,00,000/- in each of the above complaint. Counsel for respondents in these appeals countered it by arguing that the relief claimed by the complainants now respondents is less than Rs.20,00,000/- in each complaint and as such the contention of counsel for the appellant is without any substance. Larger bench of National Commission has held in "Public Health Engineering Department Vs. Upbhokta Sanrakshan Samiti" I (1992) CPJ-182(NC), that when the complaint is filed by representative/counsel on the behalf of several persons, then the total amount of compensation claimed by all such persons will govern the value of the complaint for the purpose of jurisdiction. The view expressed by State Commission that pecuniary jurisdiction of District Forum is dependent upon the value, as specified in each consumer is clearly wrong. It has been held in this authority that pecuniary jurisdiction would depend upon the aggregate quantum of compensation claimed in the petition. This authority is also discussed by larger bench of the National Commission lately in "Ambrish Kumar Shukla & 21 others Vs. First Appeal No.432 of 2017 31 Ferrous Infrastructure Private Limited" 2016(4)CPR-83 holding that the value of the complaint would be fixed in accordance with total value of the goods purchased or services hired. The National Commission has held that if the aggregate value of the goods, services and compensation, if any, claimed in the claim exceeds Rs.one crore, the National Commission would have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Similarly, if the aggregate value of goods, services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds Rs.20,00,000/-, but does not exceed Rs.one crore, the State Commission would have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Larger bench of the National Commission in "Ambrish Kumar Shukla & 21 others Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Private Limited" has held that it is the aggregate of the value of the goods purchased or services hired or availed of, compensation, if any claimed, which would determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of Consumer Forum. The submission of counsel for the complainants now respondents in the appeals is that in "Public Health Engineering Department Vs. Upbhokta Sanrakshan Samiti"
(Supra), it was held that aggregate amount of each consumers has to be toted up for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of the Forum. Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 is the relevant provision of law, which is re-produced as under:-
11. Jurisdiction of the District Forum.--(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed ''does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs.First Appeal No.432 of 2017 32
(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction,--
(a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or
(b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or carry on business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or
(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. It is, thus, evident from perusal of Section 11 (1) of the Act that the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed does not exceeds Rs.20,00,000/-. From perusal of bare language of Section 11(1) of Act and Ambrish Kumar Shukla's case (Supra), it is held that where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any claimed, exceeds Rs.20,00,000/-, then in that eventuality, the District Forum shall have no jurisdiction to try the complaint. Herein, the rate of plots in the above referred cases are Rs.600/- per square yard. The total value of the goods or services in each of the complaint is far in excess of Rs.20,00,000/-. It is the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any claimed, which is the determining factor to decide the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Forum. The District Forums have ignored this material aspect of the case and the order or decree passed by it without pecuniary jurisdiction is a nullity and nonest. It has no force First Appeal No.432 of 2017 33 in the eye of law at all. The District Forums has committed an illegality and material irregularity in assuming the jurisdiction, despite the fact that it lacked the pecuniary jurisdiction to try the above complaints giving rise to above appeals.
45. As a result of our above discussion, we do not deem it appropriate to touch the merits of the cases when the orders passed by the District Forums under challenge in the above referred appeals are without pecuniary jurisdiction and hence are nullity. Consequently, the orders of the District Forums are unsustainable in the eye of law, being without jurisdiction and resultantly, we accept all the above referred appeals and set aside all the orders passed by the Distric Forums in the above referred appeals. The District Forums quo shall return the complaints to the respective complainants in each of the complaint for presenting them before the competent Forum, equipped with pecuniary jurisdiction under law.
46. In first appeal no.432 of 2017, the appellant had deposited the amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal and further deposited Rs.3,97,550/- in compliance with order of this Commission. These amounts with interest, which accrued thereupon, if any, be remitted by the registry to appellant of this appeal by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
47. In first appeal no.433 of 2017, the appellant had deposited the amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal and further deposited Rs.3,16,459/- in First Appeal No.432 of 2017 34 compliance with order of this Commission. These amounts with interest, which accrued thereupon, if any, be remitted by the registry to appellant of this appeal by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
48. In first appeal no.435 of 2017, the appellant had deposited the amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal and further deposited Rs.3,96,085/- in compliance with order of this Commission. These amounts with interest, which accrued thereupon, if any, be remitted by the registry to appellant of this appeal by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
49. In first appeal no.436 of 2017, the appellant had deposited the amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal and further deposited Rs.3,92,176/- in compliance with order of this Commission. These amounts with interest, which accrued thereupon, if any, be remitted by the registry to appellant of this appeal by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
50. In first appeal no.438 of 2017, the appellant had deposited the amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal and further deposited Rs.7,22,844/- in compliance with order of this Commission. These amounts with interest, which accrued thereupon, if any, be remitted by the registry to appellant of this appeal by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
First Appeal No.432 of 2017 35
51. In first appeal no.439 of 2017, the appellant had deposited the amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal and further deposited Rs.5,80,111/- in compliance with order of this Commission. These amounts with interest, which accrued thereupon, if any, be remitted by the registry to appellant of this appeal by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
52. In first appeal no.441 of 2017, the appellant had deposited the amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal and further deposited Rs.7,30,016/- in compliance with order of this Commission. These amounts with interest, which accrued thereupon, if any, be remitted by the registry to appellant of this appeal by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
53. In first appeal no.442 of 2017, the appellant had deposited the amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal and further deposited Rs.5,70,749/- in compliance with order of this Commission. These amounts with interest, which accrued thereupon, if any, be remitted by the registry to appellant of this appeal by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
54. In first appeal no.443 of 2017, the appellant had deposited the amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal and further deposited Rs.5,71,121/- in compliance with order of this Commission. These amounts with First Appeal No.432 of 2017 36 interest, which accrued thereupon, if any, be remitted by the registry to appellant of this appeal by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
55. In first appeal no.445 of 2017, the appellant had deposited the amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal and further deposited Rs.7,29,756/- in compliance with order of this Commission. These amounts with interest, which accrued thereupon, if any, be remitted by the registry to appellant of this appeal by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
56. In first appeal no.446 of 2017, the appellant had deposited the amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal and further deposited Rs.4,33,899/- in compliance with order of this Commission. These amounts with interest, which accrued thereupon, if any, be remitted by the registry to appellant of this appeal by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
57. In first appeal no.449 of 2017, the appellant had deposited the amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal and further deposited Rs.5,80,297/- in compliance with order of this Commission. These amounts with interest, which accrued thereupon, if any, be remitted by the registry to appellant of this appeal by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
First Appeal No.432 of 2017 37
58. In first appeal no.451 of 2017, the appellant had deposited the amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal and further deposited Rs.3,18,396/- in compliance with order of this Commission. These amounts with interest, which accrued thereupon, if any, be remitted by the registry to appellant of this appeal by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
59. In first appeal no.456 of 2017, the appellant had deposited the amount of Rs.5,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount with interest, which accrued thereupon, if any, be remitted by the registry to appellant of this appeal by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
60. Arguments in above referred appeals were heard on 14.12.2017 and the orders were reserved. Certified copies of the orders be communicated to the parties as per rules.
61. The appeals could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(J. S. KLAR) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (SURINDER PAL KAUR) MEMBER December 18, 2017 MM