DEVNEET KAUR vs PUNJAB URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

IT is an appeal against the order dated 19.4.2000 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (herinafter called the District Forum).

ACCORDING to the complainant, she was allotted a plot No. 2238-C, Phase-II, Urban Estate, Dugri Road, Ludhiana, situated in Sector 32-A, Samrala Road, Ludhiana. She had already paid all the dues regarding the said plot. At the time of demarcation by the J.E., it was found that 50 yards area of the plot was encroached. Despite the fact that a number of letters were written by the complainant to the opposite party, no positive steps were taken by the opposite party. She even met the Estate Officer, PUDA but nothing was done by the opposite party. Opposite party in their reply took a preliminary objection that the complainant was not a consumer, was barred by her act and conduct from filing the complaint and the area found short at the time of measurement was 12''.3" x 34''.6" since the area was encroached upon by Mohinder Kaur. Mohinder Kaur filed a civil suit which was still pending. The opposite party had admitted the allotment of the plot to the complainant and also the fact that the complainant had paid all the dues. According to the opposite party the complainant was asked to attend the office of the opposite party on 9.9.1997 but she did not agree to take the possession of the plot lying at the site on ''as is where is basis''. The actual area of the plot available at the spot was 357 sq. yards and the opposite party was ready to give the possession. As per terms and conditions of the allotment the price of the plot was subject to variation of the actual measurement of the site and also to the enhancement of the compensation by the Court. It was said in the reply that if the area of the plot was found short at the time of possession then it could not be said that there was deficiency in service. The complainant got the plan sanctioned after actually seeing the plot at the site and examining its measurement. It was denied if there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Prayer for dismissing the complaint was made. District Forum allowed the complaint and ordered as under: "Accordingly the opposite party is directed to refund the amount of Rs. 6,024/- to the complainant along with interest @ 15% per annum with effect from 6.5.1988 till the date of payment and to deliver the possession of rest if not already given. The opposite party is further directed to pay Rs. 1,000/- as costs to the complainant."

Hence this appeal.

We have heard the Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case as well as order of the District Forum. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum.

THE case of the complainant was that there was encroachment of 50 yards area of the plot and the possession had not been given to her. THE opposite party in reply had admitted that the possession of only 357 sq. yards could be given and 43 sq. yards area was found encroached at the spot. It was admitted that the possession of 43 sq. yards area was not given to the complainant when the possession of the plot was given to her. It was conceded that the total sale price of the plot was paid by the complainant upto 6.5.1998. Last payment was made on 6.5.1998. Admittedly, the complainant had made the payment of 400 sq. yards but the possession of only 357 sq. yards was given to her. THE total price paid by the complainant was Rs. 56,100/- for 400 sq. yds. and as such, the price paid by the complainant per sq. yd. including the interest comes to Rs. 140.25. THE price of 43 sq. yds. comes to Rs. 6,024/-. THE amount of Rs. 6,024/- was deposited by the complainant but the possession of area measuring 43 sq. yds. for which the payment was made not delivered to her. Admittedly, the land has been encroached by someone. Taking into consideration the above factual position, the District Forum ordered the refund of the amount paid by the complainant along with interest. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum. It is undisputed that as per terms and conditions of the allotment, the price of the plot was subject to variation of the actual measurement of the site and also to the enhancement of the compensation by the Court. If the area of the plot was found short at the time of possession then it could not be said that there was deficiency in service. District Forum has rightly directed the opposite party to refund the amount along with interest. In these circumstances, this appeal is dismissed as meritless. Appeal dismissed.