ESTATE OFFICER, PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING And DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs Dev Raj

DISTRICT Forum, Ropar on September 13, 1997 while allowing the complaint filed by Dev Raj gave the following directions to the opposite party-Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (known as PUDA) : "(i) Sh. Dev Raj is held entitled to allotment of 200 sq. yards of plot on 1.8.1995 when his name was illegally excluded from the draw of lots. Hence a plot of the said dimension be allotted in his favour in the Urban Estate of Mohali at the then prevalent rate of Rs. 1,400/- per sq. yard within 90 days and the said allottee to be allowed to complete all the formalities as per requirement at the time of draw held on 1.8.1995.

(ii) The aggrieved consumer is also held entitled to a token compensation of Rs. 1 lac besides an amount of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand) as costs payable by opposite party - PUDA within 90 days.

(iii) In case the above mentioned relief is not made available to the complainant within the stipulated period, he would be entitled to interest on the said compensation of Rs. 1 lac @ 18% per annum from the date of the complaint i.e. 23.7.1997 till actual realisation.

(iv) Any non-compliance of these directions is likely to attract the penal provisions of Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986." The aforesaid order has been challenged by PUDA in this appeal.

AS back as in 1976, Dev Raj applied for allotment of 200 sq. yards of plot on deposit of Rs. 810/-. Subsequently he was called upon to deposit Rs. 3,380/- which he did. It was in October, 1993 that opposite party No. 2. Estate Officer, called fresh options increasing rate of the plot at Rs. 1,200/- per sq, yard and called upon the complainant to deposit Rs. 20,000/-. The complainant complied with the aforesaid direction. A draw of lots was held on January 28, 1994. The complainant was not successful. Sub- sequently another draw was contemplated to be held in July, 1995. List of eligible candidates was displayed which did not bear the name of the complainant. Objections to the aforesaid list were invited and the complainant filed his objections on July 12, 1995. The draw was not held on July 14, 1995 as scheduled but was postponed. Subsequently another draw was contemplated. List was displaced and objections were invited. That was in July or August, 1995. Since the complainant had earlier filed his objections, which were not disposed of, the complainant did not file any fresh objections in July, 1995. His name was not considered in the draw and he approached the District Forum with the complaint, which was allowed with the reliefs as stated above. The opposite parties contested the complaint inter alia asserting that the name of the complainant was not actually considered in the draw of lots held on August 1, 1995 since, he did not file any objections to the list of the names of the applicants displayed.

In appeal, it has been argued by learned Counsel for the appellant - PUDA that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law as there was no obligation on the part of the authorities to consider the name of the complainant in the draw of lots held on August 1, 1995 since he had not filed any objections. Learned Counsel for the complainant has argued that since his objections for the scheduled draw for July 14, 1995 had already been filed and merely the date of draw was postponed, the authorities were required to consider his objections and include his name in the draw.

AFTER hearing Counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the approach of the District Forum is perfectly legal and justified on the facts of the present case. There was deficiency on the part of the appellant in not considering the name of the complainant in the draw held on August 1, 1995 though he was fully eligible being old applicant and had given option for the same and fulfilled other requirements. In the complaint, it was specifically pleaded by the complainant that he had filed objections on July 12, 1995 to the list of applicant displayed by the authorities for a draw to be held on July 14, 1995. This assertion was not specifically denied in the version submitted by the appellants. Thus, it was deemed to be admitted to be correct. By merely post- ponement of the date of the draw, it could not be said that the previous options or objections filed by the complainant became meaningless. It was incumbent upon the authorities to consider such objections and to accept or reject the same. It is not the case of the appellant that any such order was passed on those objections. The contention of Counsel for the appellant that fresh draw was to be held on August 1, 1995 for which fresh objections were called is of no consequence. The previous objections already filed were to be taken into consideration when the cases of the old applicants were to be considered. The contention is repelled. Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the grant of compensation of Rs. 1 lac to the complainant is highly excessive and is without any basis. This contention cannot be accepted wholly. When the complainant had been fulfilling all the requirements of the advertisement since 1976, he had a right for consideration of his application along with similarly situated other persons and if at the appropriate time his name had been considered and allotted a plot, he would have been in a position to raise construction thereon with the resources at his disposal. By unduly and unlawfully denying him the opportunity of allotment of plot and raising construction thereon while assessing compensation, the element of escalation of price in the construction and building material for all these years has to be taken into consideration. The contention that the prevalent rate of sale price is Rs. 2700/- per sq. yard and the complainant is to get the plot @ Rs. 1400/- per sq. yard, separately compensation of Rs. 1 lac was unnecessary. This contention again cannot be accepted. At the time of the proposed draw, the old rate of Rs. 1400/- per sq. yard was applicable and the persons who were successful in the draw were allotted plots at the aforesaid rate. It would be discriminatory to charge higher rate of Rs. 2700/- per sq. yard from the persons whose names were illegally ignored from the draw. The difference as stated above in the price cannot be termed as compensation for loss suffered by the complainant on account of deficiency in rendering service as contemplated, under Section 14(1)(d) of the Act. Such compensation has to be separately assessed taking in view the loss suffered.

IN Ghanna Ram v. Jalandhar Improvement Trust, O.C. No. 41/1997, a sum of Rs. 1 lac as compensation was granted on account of delay in delivering possession of the allotted plotby the Improvement Trust to the complainant and the delay in that case was of 17 years. IN Ram Chand v. The State Officer, Urban Estate, II (1997) CPJ 321, this Commission granted compensation of Rs. 40,000/- on account of delay in delivering possession of the allotted plot and the delay was of the three years. There is no fixed criteria or method by which compensation in such like cases is to be fixed. A reasonable and just compensation is required to be fixed in view of the circumstances of each case. Taking into consideration overall circumstances of the case, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- is considered a reasonable compensation to be payable to Dev Raj by the appellant - PUDA. To that extent, order of the District Forum deserves to be modified and we order accordingly. Recently it has been observed that the District Forums while passing order under Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act have been recording a type of caution or threat of attracting the penal provisions of Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act in the case of non-compliance of such orders passed under Section 14 of the Act. If law is there as is Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, the party concerned would be at liberty to resort to such provisions, if so advised. On its own, it is not contemplated that the Fora can suo motu take action under Section 27 of the Act. There are two provisions in the Consumer Protection Act for getting compliance of the final order passed under Section 14 of the Act. One is under Section 25 for getting such order executed either by the FORA and if not practicable to get such execution transferred to Civil Court concerned and the other is penal provisions of Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act for sentencing the defaulting party for non- observance or non-compliance of such final order passed. The directions as contained in relief Clause (iv) as reproduced above were not required to be given in the final order passed under Section 14 of the Act and are set aside. But that does not mean that at the subsequent stage, if appropriate application is moved, no action would be taken under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. As and when any request is made, the same would be considered by the Fora according to law. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is partly allowed. Order of the District Forum is modified to the extent that instead of grant of Rs. 1 lac as compensation, the opposite party would pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant. Other directions on merits given by the District Forum are affirmed. There will be no order as to costs in this appeal. Appeal partly allowed.