AJAY WALIA vs PUNJAB URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

THIS order will dispose of bunch of appeals mentioned above. Appeal Nos. 531 to 566, 604, 610, 612, 613, 616, 627, and 628 all of 2003 (total 33 in number) have been directed against order dated 3.6.2003 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I [for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum] in Complaint Case No. 491 of 2002 ''Ajay Walia v. Punjab Urban Planning Development Authority & Another'' deciding bunch of complaint case Nos. 491 to 506, 544 to 567, 571, 572, 575, 576 and 583 all of 2002.

A separate bunch of appeals have been filed by Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority and another [for short hereinafter referred to as PUDA] comprising 44 appeals bearing Nos. 560 to 588, 654 to 688 all of 2003 and arising out of the same order dated 3.6.2003 passed in the main case filed by Shri Ajay Walia. Since the District Forum has passed the common order dated 3.6.2003 in Complaint Case No. 491 of 2003 filed by Shri Ajay Walia, this order is also being passed by us in that case being Appeal No. 531 of 2003, Sh. Ajay Walia v. PUDA & Another. The District Forum followed the decision rendered by this Commission in Appeal No. 340 of 2002 filed by Smt. Shabnam Virk i.e. Smt. Shabnam Virk v. PUDA & Anr., vide order dated 7.3.2002 and allowed the complaint cases in the light of the decision rendered by this Commission in the case of Smt. Shabnam Virk (supra), and directed the O.Ps. PUDA to charge the advertised price and awarded interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of Rs. 1,03,000/- for a period of one year and four months and further awarded a cost of Rs. 500/-. The impugned order disposed of in all 45 complaint cases bearing complaint case Nos. 491 to 506, 544 to 567, 571, 572, 575, 576 and 583, all of 2002 filed against PUDA and another.

In the appeals filed by the complainants, it has been prayed that the order of the District Forum be modified to the extent that the appellant is entitled to get interest @ 12% on the excess amount paid by him in view of the judgment of this Commision passed in appeal No.150 of 2003, Smt. Manmohan Kaur v. PUDA & Anr., Decided on 5.6.2003. The case of Smt. Shabnam Virk (supra), i.e. Appeal No. 340 of 2002 was decided by this Commission vide order dated 7.3.2002 against which order, a revision, was filed by the Chief Administrator, PUDA and another, before the Hon''ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi [for short hereinafter referred to as the National Commission]. The Hon''ble National Commission while deciding the revision petition Nos. 1206-1207 of 2002 arising from the order dated 7.3.2002 passed in Appeal Nos. 340 and 341 both of 2002 of this Commission, partly upheld the order of this Commission and partly allowed the revisions. The order passed by this State Commission regarding the direction to charge the original price from the complainants was upheld by the Hon''ble National Commission which held, inter alia, as under: "As far as the question of pricing is concerned, normally Consumer Forum does not enter into this area - but when we see the statement filed by PUDA explaining the reasons for price escalation of the house, we find good reason to interfere. Mere perusal of the statement reveals that most of the cost escalation is attributed to cost escalation of land. Reason for this is given out ''land rate of Rs. 1200 per sq. yd. at the time of Advertisement, in August 1995 was revised by Finance Committee to Rs. 2700/- per sq. yd. vide Agenda No. 1408 on 30.6.1997''. In our view this is not a sufficient/valid ground to increase the cost arbitrarily. There ought to be some ground for escalating the price. Learned Counsel for PUDA has not been forthcoming on any explaination or justification in support of price escalation. If the price escalation was on account of any award on land acquisition as was held in the case of HUDA v. Ranjan Dhamina, AIR 1997 SC 1732, we shall have no ground to interfere. It is not in dispute that land stood acquired much before the date, nothing has been brought on record to show/justify the ground for the escalation, in the absence of which just because word ''tentative'' was indicated in the Brochure or letter, this alone cannot be the ground for land price escalation when no additional burden has come on the Public Attorney as a result of any bounden duty. The order of the State Commission to PUDA to charge the original price calls for no interference."

THE Hon''ble National Commission, however, set aside the grant of interest for the delayed possession on the ground that normally a period of two to two and a half years is granted for completion and handing over of possession of house by the Hon''ble National Commission and in the cases before the Hon''ble National Commission, the period did not exceed the aforementioned period of two to two and a half years. The learned Counsel Mr. Balwinder Singh, Advocate appearing for PUDA in appeal Nos. 601, 610, 612, 613 and 616, all of 2003 submitted that the respondent-PUDA is intending to file a review petition before the Hon''ble National Commission regarding review of the order dated 26.8.2003 passed in Revision Petition Nos. 1206-1207 of 2002, Chief Administrator, PUDA & Anr. v. Mrs. Shabnam Virk, though he mentioned at the same time that till today, no such review petition has been presented before the Hon''ble National Commission. Since the Hon''ble National Commission has already decided the revision petitions filed by PUDA in Smt. Shabnam Virk''s case, the position of law has been well settled and the order of this State Commission in issuing a direction to PUDA to charge only the original price mentioned in the advertisement has been upheld, the District Forum has rightly issued such a direction and no interference is called for in that direction.

SO far as the award of interest on the excess amount is concerned, the learned Counsel Mr. G.S. Arshi, Advocate appearing for PUDA in Appeal Nos. 531 to 556, 560 to 588, 627, 628, 654 to 688, all of 2003 pointed out that the respective complainants in their complaint cases did not pray for grant of interest on the excess amount charged and hence the District Forum committed an error in awarding interest on the excess amount. The Hon''ble National Commission while deciding the case of Smt. Shabnam Virk (supra), did not make any observation or did not allow any interest on the excess amount charged by PUDA from the respective complainants and as such the District Forum was legally not justified in awarding interest on the excess amount charged by PUDA from the complainants on account of escalation in the costs of the flat. The are deciding all these complaint cases in the light of the judgment rendered by the Hon''ble National Commission and as such while relying on the aforesaid judgment delivered in the case of Smt. Shabnam Virk (supra), we partly allow the appeals filed by PUDA i.e. Appeal Nos. 560 to 588, 654 to 688, all of 2003 and set aside the order of the District Forum insofar as it directed O.P.-PUDA to pay interest @ 12% per annum on the excess amount charged on account of escalation in the costs. The appeals filed by the complainants i.e. Appeal Nos. 531 to 556, 604, 610, 612, 613, 616, 627 and 628, all of 2003 have, for similar reasons, no merit and are dismissed. The bunch of appeals referred to above are disposed of in the terms mentioned above leaving the parties to bear the costs of appeal themselves. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. Ordered accordingly.