ESTATE OFFICER, H.U.D.A. vs B.P.SINGAL

THE appellant/respondent Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Sonepat floated a scheme for allotment of plots in Sector 23, Sonepat and the respondent/complainant Shri B.P. Singal, resident of House No. 1250, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh applied for the plot and deposited a sum of Rs. 16,087/-. After having been successful in the daw of lots, the respondent/complainant paid Rs. 23,989/-. Subsequently, he deposited Rs. 20,000/- on 19.8.1993. So in this way, the respondent/complainant deposited Rs. 60,077/- up to 19.8.1993. However, he was not given the possession of the said plot even after number of reminder. As a result of which, he filed a complaint bearing No. 215 of 1997 under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short hereinafter referred to as the C.P. Act) in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum-I). THE District Forum-I on 22.5.2000 found the appellant/respondent deficient in service for not giving possession of the plot to the respondent/complainant within the reasonable time and has directed the O.Ps. to refund the entire amount of Rs. 60,077/- with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from three years hence from the date of allotment on the respective amount deposited by the complainant till its payment and awarded Rs. 5,000/- as compensation towards harassment and mengal agony suffered by the respondent/complainant. Aggrieved against this judgment, the appellant/respondent - H.U.D.A. attempted this appeal in which the learned Counsel for the appellant/respondent Mr. Aman Chaudhary, Advocate has prayed that the District Forum-I has erred in awarding excessive interest @ 15% to the respondent/complainant. He has further prayed that the latest judgment of the Hon''ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana passed in the case of Vikas Puri & Ors. v. H.U.D.A. & Anr., C.W.P. No. 16202 of 1998, wherein it has been held that the interest should not be more than 10%.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant H.U.D.A. Mr. Aman Chaudhary, Advocate and the learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant Mr. Sunidh Kashyap, Advocate and have carefully perused the order of the District Forum-I and the record of the complaint case. Now we proceed to consider the rival contentions of both the parties. Briefly the appellant - H.U.D.A. floated a scheme for allotment of plots in Sector 23, Sonepat and the respondent-complainant applied for the allotment of plot and deposited earnest money of Rs. 16,087/-. The respondent/complainant was successful in the draw of lots and was allotted Plot No. 2102 in Sector 23, Sonepat vide allotment letter, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure C-1 with the complaint case whereby the respondent/complainant was called upon to pay Rs. 23,989/- which he deposited vide two demand drafts, No. 560488 dated 26.9.1991 and another demand draft bearing No. 560489 for Rs. 21,844/- and Rs. 2,146/- respectively as a result of which, the appellant/respondent issued receipts in lieu thereof, copy of which has been attached as Annexure C-5 along with the compliant case. Subsequently, the respondent/complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 20,000/- on 19.8.1993 vide receipt dated 19.8.1993 (Copy Annexure C-6). In all, the respondent/complainant deposited Rs. 60,077/- up to 19.8.1993. It has been alleged by the respondent/complainant that he wrote several letters and reminders to the appellant/respondent requesting them to give the possession of the allotted plot but all was in vain. As a result of the failure of the delivery of the plot, the respondent/complainant sought refund of the deposited amount but the refund was not made despite numerous attempts of the respondent/complainant. Hence, he alleged deficiency in service and prayed for the refund of the deposited amount along with interest and costs of Rs. 60,077/- along with interest @ 18% for six years and a compensation of Rs. 75,000/- to him.

The appellant/respondent - H.U.D.A. has in its Appeal Case No. 145 of 2000 filed against the judgment of the District Forum-I, in para 4, stated that the District Forum-I has erred in awarding Rs. 5,000/- to the respondent/complainant on account of litigation expenses, mental agony etc. especially when the District Forum had already awarded interest which was in the shape of compensation and has further prayed that the appeal may kindly be allowed and the order passed by the District Forum-I dated 22.5.2000 be set aside. He further contended that in the case of Vikas Puri & Ors. (supra), the Hon''ble High Court has held in last but one para at internal page 3, as under : "In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to decide the petitioner''s claim for refund of the amount along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum in accordance with the decisions of this Court in R.K. Goel''s case has modified by the Supreme Court and S.K. Khanna''s case. Appropriate order shall be passed by the competent authority within four months of the submission of certified copy of this order together with a copy of the writ petition and photostat copies of the orders passed in R.K. Goel''s case (supra), and S.K. Khanna''s case (supra)."

The learned Counsel for the appellant/complainant also placed before us the case of HUDA & Anr. v. R.K. Goel, as referred to in the case of Vikas Puri & Anr. (supra), wherein it has been held by the Hon''ble Apex Court, as under : "We have heard both the parties. We do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the Court below except the interest made at the rate of 18% is reduced to 10%. The payment may be made within the period of two months alongwith interest at the rate of 10% till the date of payment. The S.L.Ps. are dismissed."

NOTICES of the complaint case were issued to the appellants/respondents by the District Forum-I who put in appearance and contested the complaint case. After hearing both the sides and after carefully perusing the record on the file of the complaint case, the District Forum-I at internal page 4 of its judgment held as under : "Though there is no arithmetical yardstick to measure the compensation to be awarded with exactitude, yet reasonableness is the criteria for judging all the aspect, so O.P. should have delivered the possession to the complainant within reasonable period say of three years since the allotment of plot but O.P. on one hand had been accepting the deposit from the complainant whereas on the other hand had been depriving him of the possession of plot, so he had to seek redressal by initiating legal proceedings. As the amount deposited by the complainant remained with O.P., of whose use complainant stood deprived of for all the years, so by giving margin of three years period since the allotment of plot in question of whose possession was not given to the complainant, O.Ps. are directed to refund the entire amount of Rs. 60,077/- with interest @ 15% p.a. from three years hence from the date of allotment on the respective amount deposited by the complainant, till its payment."

In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the District Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh has rightly held the appellant/respondent liable for not giving the possession of the plot i.e. Plot No. 2102, Sector 23, Sonepat to the respondent/complainant and ordered for the refund of the entire amount. Thus the appeal is partially accepted, however, the District Forum-I has erred in awarding the interest @ 15% which is in excess to the decision taken by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Vikas Puri & Ors. (supra). The sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation is also on the higher side. Resultantly the appellant is liable to pay; the interest at the rate of 10% on the amount deposited by the respondent/complainant and we quantify the costs at Rs. 1,000/-. The order of the District Forum-I dated 22.5.2000 is amended to that extent only. The copies of this judgment be supplied to the parties free of charges. Appeal partly allowed.