NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
FIRST
APPEAL NO. 167 OF 2001
(From the order dated 11.05.2001 in Complt. No. 18/2000
of State Commission,
UT
1.
Authority
through Chief Administrator,
PUDA, SCO
No.63-64, Sector-17,
2. Estate Officer,
PUDA Complex, Phase-I,
SAS Nagar
(Mohali)
Distt. Ropar
Appellants
Vs.
1. Shri Davinder
Singh Virdi
S/o Late S.
Pritam Singh
2. Smt. Bhupinder
Kaur,
D/O Late S.
Pritam Singh
Through their
General Power of Attorney,
Sh. Bhupinder
Singh S/O S. Manjit Singh
H.No.1496,
Sector-40-B,
BEFORE :
HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE K.S.GUPTA,
PRESIDING
MEMBER
For the Appellants
Ms. Rachana Joshi Issar, Advocate
For the Respondents
Shri Divjot Singh, Advocate
DATED :
O R D E R
Operative portion of the order dated 11.05.01 passed by the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT,
Consequently,
direction is given to the opposite parties (appellants) to charge the
price of the plot allotted to the complainant, at the rate of Rs.1400/- per sq.
yard and interest @ 10% per annum instead of charging at enhanced rate of
Rs.3,600/- per sq. yard and interest @ 15% per annum. The Complainants are entitled
to get a consolidated sum of Rs.1 lac for difference of costs of construction
and compensation for mental agony and harassment. The opposite parties are
directed to pay cost of litigation which we quantify at Rs.2,000/-. The opposite parties are further directed to
refund/adjust the excess amount charged and re-schedule the payment of
installments.
We have heard Mrs. Rachna Joshi Issar for appellants and Shri Divjot Singh for
respondents.
In this appeal
controversy between the parties mainly centers around the legality of charging
the price of the land allotted to respondents @ Rs.3,600/- per sq. yd. taking
the date of 22.4.97 on which respondents allegedly completed the formalities
for transferring the land. Reference to
the letters dated 24.3.81 (copy at page
32), 9.4.81 (copy at page 35), 25.01.83 (copy at page 37), 13.09.93 (copy at
page 38), 20.7.94 (copy at page 39) and 29.7.94 (copy at page 40) is necessary
on the controversy on hand. It is
admitted case of the parties that Pritam Singh, father of respondent No. 1 and
his sister - Smt. Bhupinder Kaur had applied to the Estate Officer, PUDA,
appellant No. 2 for allotment of a residential plot of 500 sq. yards in Mohali
Urban Estate on 11.02.71 by fling
application which was registered at No. 7170.
Pritam Singh died on 24.12.1972 in
Size of the Plot Earnest
money
500 Sq. yards Rs.60,000.00
400 Sq. yards Rs.48,000.00
300 Sq. yards Rs.36,000.00
250 Sq. yards Rs.30,000.00
200 Sq. yards Rs.24,000.00
150 Sq. yards Rs.14,250.00
In terms of letter dated
20.7.94, appellant No. 2 communicated to the attorney of the date of deposit of
money having been extended upto 29.7.94.
In reply to letter dated 20.7.94 the attorney of respondents sent the
letter dated 29.7.94 to appellant No. 2. Omitting immaterial portion this
letter runs thus:-
An application bearing registration NO.
7170 Gen. Is pending for allotment of 500 Sq. Yds. Plot in SAS Nagar. We are agree to become eligible for
preferential allotment in the new sectors of Urban Estate,
I am sending herewith a demand draft for Rs.59,000/-
bearing No. 984336 dated 27.5.94 drawn on Punjab Sind Bank, Mohali payable to
the Estate Officer, Urban Estate, Punjab Housing Development Board, Mohali.
It is further requested that the
aforesaid application registered under the name of Shri Pritam Singh may kindly
be transferred in the name of Shri Davinder Singh Virdi as per the certificate
issued by the Administrator Gen. UT,
Thereafter, letter
for allotment of plot No. 1113,
measuring 500 sq. yards in Sector 69, Urban Estate, SAS Nagar, Mohali in the
name of the respondents (copy at page 41) was sent by appellant No. 2, an
officer of appellate No. 1 authority wherein the price of plot was calculated @
Rs.3,600/- per sq. yard. Letter notices
that in case the amount of six half
yearly installments as noted in para 6 was not paid the interest payable would
be @ 15% p.a. It was pointed out by Mrs.
Issar, Adv. that appellant No. 1 authority held draw on 1.8.95 for all the old
applicants and in cases where the original applicants died before allotment in
their favour, the registration numbers of deceased applicants were included in
the draw but allotment in favour of legal heirs was to be
made only after the legal heirs completed the formalities necessary for transfer
of registration numbers in their names.
The price chargeable from such allottees was the price prevalent at the
time of individual allotment. Attorney
of the respondents did not show
alertness in completing the necessary formalities for transfer of the names of
respondents in place of deceased Pritam Singh.
Requisite formalities for transfer were completed only on 22.4.97 and
the allotment of plot NO. 1113 was, thus,
made at the then prevailing rate of Rs.3600/- per sq. yard which became
effective since 20.3.97. Respondents
paid up 25% of the price as per allotment thereafter on 7.5.99. It was further pointed out by Mrs. Issar that
the letter dated 31.3.75 allegedly sent by the respondents was never received
by the appellants and there was no occasion for the appellants to have denied
the receipt of this letter as there was no reference thereof in the
complaint. Reliance was placed on the
decisions in Bareilly Development Authority & Anr. Vs. Ajai Pal Singh &
Ors. {(1989) 2 SCC 116}, Premji Bhai Parmar & Ors. Vs. Delhi Development
Authority {(1980) 2 SCR 704} and Delhi Development Authority Vs. Pushpendra
Kumar Jain (1994 Supp.(3) SCC 494). It is pertinent to mention that though in
the last para reproduced above of the letter dated 29.7.94 specific request was
made for transferring the registration
of the application for allotment from the name of Pritam Singh to that of respondent No. 1 as per the certificate
issued by Administrator General UT, Chandigary, copy whereof had already been
sent, still the appellants did not respondent
and decline to transfer the registration in favour of respondent No. 1
unless he completed the necessary formalities.
Appellant No. 1 authority, therefore,
cannot take advantage of its lapse and insist for payment of allotted
plot at the revised enhanced rate of Rs.3600/- per sq. yard which became
effective later on w.e.f. 20.3.97.
Aforesaid three decisions have no applicability to the facts of present case. Thus, order under challenge in so far it
relates to charging of price of allotted plot @ Rs.1,400/- and interest @ 10%
p.a. cannot be faulted. Further,
consolidated amount of Rs.1 lakh was awarded towards difference of cost and
compensation for mental agony and harassment to the respondents by the State
Commission. Afore-mentioned letter dated
9.4.81 and alleged letter dated 31.3.75
would show that the respondents had given consent for allotment of a plot measuring 200 sq. yards still they
were allotted a bigger plot of 500 sq. yards on a lesser rate. In this backdrop, interest of justice will be
met if part of the order awarding said amount by way of compensation etc. is
set aside.
Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed and order dated 11.05.01 in
so far as it relates to awarding of Rs.1 lakh towards difference in cost and
compensation is set aside. No order as to cost.
J
(K.S.GUPTA)
PRESIDING MEMBER
.
(P.D. SHENOY)
MEMBER
Yd/*