BIR INDER SINGH vs CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION

THIS judgment shall dispose of Complaint No. 28 of 1997 - Bir Inder Singh and Others v. Chandigarh Administration and Others. Besides this Complaint Nos. 30, 34, 35, 39, 41, 48, 54 and 55 of 1997, 5, 11, 14 and 19 of 1998 which also pertain to residential plots of Sector 33, Chandigarh, shall also be disposed of by this judgment because the facts and circumstances are similar.

BIR Inder Singh and his two sons Manjinder Singh and Gurvinder Singh, now complainants, were allotted a residential plot measuring 230 square yards through auction which was held on 17.12.1996 in the premises of the Estate Office, Sector 17, Chandigarh for Rs. 23,50,000/-. A sum of Rs. 2,35,0007- was deposited being 10% of bid money on 17.12.1996 itself by the complainant. A further sum of Rs. 3,52,500/-being 15% of the bid money was deposited on 13.1.1997 (Annexure C- 3). The complainant has alleged that when on 27.3.1997 he reached the site alongwith Executive Engineer for taking possession it was found that there was no approach road for going to the plot. There was no street light, no arrangements for sewerage, no rain-water drainage system, no arrangement for the supply of drinking water and no approach road for going to the plot. When the complainant requested that the officer should point out the plot, it was not possible to reach the supposed site because there was 15'' - 20'' deep rain-water and huge grass which had grown there. The officer expressed his inability to practically point out the actual site. The relief claimed in par a 11 of the complaint is reproduced as under: (i) Immediately providing of approach road to the plot; (ii) Providing drinking water supply lines; (iii) Provision of sewerage at the site; (iv) Providing of rain-water drainage system; (v) Providing of street lights; and (vi) Providing plinth levels to enable the complainants to start the construction on the plot in question.

Besides this the complainant has claimed a compensation of Rs. 10 lacs alleging that though a sum of Rs. 5,87,500/- has been deposited by them, yet the respondents have failed to hand over the possession.

There is a reply on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 & 2, wherein it has been averred that the complainants are not entitled to any services from them. The complainant was to construct the building by raising his own funds. The sale has been made under the Chandigarh Lease Hold of Sites and Buildings Rules, 1973 and this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain it. It has further been averred that the complainant received actual possession of the plot. It has further been averred that basic amenities such as road, street light etc. would be provided during the development of the area. It was open to the bidder to come forward or not because they were aware about the non-existence of the amenities and cannot be allowed to delay the Government dues.

IN the reply filed on behalf of Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh, respondent No. 3, it has been averred that a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- has been demanded by the complainant only for the purpose of bringing the complaint within the jurisdiction of this Commission. The present complaint regarding deficiency in service for not providing basic amenities in open auction is not maintainable against the answering respondent because it was never made aware about the said auction nor informed for developing/providing basic amenities for the said plot purchased by the complainant. It was only in June, 1997 that the complainant informed the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh regarding the non-existence of basic amenities. The Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh came into existence on 1.6.1996 and since it has not received any communication from the Estate Officer or any other office regarding provision of sewerage system, drainage, storm-water drainage system, roads etc. to be provided in the locality of this complainant. As soon as it received information in this regard it started conducting survey of the area and estimates for providing the said facilities have been prepared and sent the same for administrative approval. In support of the allegations made in the complaint there is affidavit of Shri Bir Inder Singh S/o Shri Bishan Singh, one of the complainants. In the rebuttal there is affidavit of Shri Manmohan Jit Singh, Superintending Engineer dated 27.10.1998 onbehalf of respondent No. 3, wherein it has been specifically deposed that it was in and around June, 1997 when the complainant informed the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh regarding non-existence of the basic amenities in the locality. The Municipal Corporation came into existence on 1.6.1996 and the deponent did not receive any Communication from the Estate Officer or any other office regarding provision of the sewerage system, drainage, storm-water drainage system, roads etc. to be provided in the locality of the complainants. However, as soon as the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh was approached by the complainants regarding non-existence of the aforesaid amenities a survey of the area was conducted and steps are being taken for seeking administrative approval. It would be pertinent to point out that in view of Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, III (1993) CPJ 7 (SC)=AIR 1994 SC 787, this Commission has the jurisdiction to deal with such cases. Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides additional remedy to the consumer. Since the respondents had been deficient in providing approach road, drainage system, street lights and plinth level to plots, the complainants are entitled to interest @ 18% per annum on the sums deposited with the respondents till the certificate is issued by the Chief Engineer, Union Territory, Chandigarh or the officer next below him that the site is fit for construction. This shall apply to amount already paid and the amount outstanding as price, which shall be payable. The complainant(s) in each case is/are also held entitled to Rs. 15,000/- as compensation for harassment at the hands of the respondents. Orders announced.